Prayers - 
[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

Virtual participation in proceedings commenced (Order, 4 June).
[NB: [V] denotes a Member participating virtually.]

Oral
Answers to
Questions

Education

The Secretary of State was asked—

Educational Attainment

Richard Holden: What steps his Department is taking to help ensure improvement in educational attainment in each region of the UK.

Gavin Williamson: My Department is committed to raising standards across the country and levelling up opportunities for all. Our £1 billion covid recovery package includes a £350 million national tutoring programme targeted at disadvantaged pupils, and we continue to invest in the growth of strong academy trusts to drive attainment in areas facing particular challenges.

Richard Holden: In blue wall constituencies such as North West Durham and more broadly across the north of England, it is quite clear that the Government’s lifelong learning announcement will really benefit people and communities disproportionately well, helping our Government’s levelling up agenda. What assessment have the Government made of the impact on earnings of individuals who gain a level 3 qualification, rather than sticking at level 2?

Gavin Williamson: My hon. Friend raises an incredibly important point, because there is so much evidence that if people have an A-level equivalent qualification, the benefits that they will have throughout their life are significant, with an increase of 10% of average earnings for those who gain that qualification. That is why our lifetime skills guarantee is so vital to ensure that people right across the country have the opportunities that we want all our constituents to have.

Carol Monaghan: Educational attainment depends very much on the quality of the teachers. In Scotland, teachers must attain a specified professional standard, which is not necessarily replicated in other parts of the UK. The General Teaching Council for Scotland has raised concerns about the United Kingdom Internal Market Bill and its implications for the profession in Scotland, so will the Secretary of State agree to meet the General Teaching Council for Scotland to discuss these concerns?

Gavin Williamson: Of course, we would always be happy to meet.

Robert Halfon: My right hon Friend is right to delay the exams, as announced today. What assessment has been made of the students who missed learning over the past six months in terms of the catch-up needed for the learning they have lost, and what is the plan, if students are sent home, to ensure that they carry on learning at home online?

Gavin Williamson: My right hon. Friend raises the vital point that we need to ensure that we have continuity of education. I think every Member of this House recognises the value that all children gain from being in school with their teachers and having the opportunity to learn, and that is why issuing the direction of continuity of education and ensuring that schools are held accountable  for delivering education even if pupils are having to isolate at home is so incredibly important. We need to ensure that every child, whether they are in the classroom or at home, is getting the education that they require.

Childcare: Parental Access

Sara Britcliffe: What steps his Department is taking to help support parents’ access to childcare.

Laura Farris: What steps his Department is taking to help support parents’ access to childcare.

Vicky Ford: High-quality childcare supports children’s development and helps parents to work, and we are therefore continuing to bulk-buy childcare hours from the sector at pre-covid levels, even if providers had closed due to the pandemic. Some 708,000 children attended an early years setting on 1 October, which is an increase of about 300,000 compared with the end of the summer term. We have also encouraged schools to ensure that after-school and breakfast clubs are reopening.

Sara Britcliffe: Many residents in Hyndburn and Haslingden have contacted me regarding our manifesto commitment to delivering a £1 billion flexible childcare fund to support parents and children with holiday and wraparound care. What progress is being made on delivering on that promise?

Vicky Ford: I thank my hon. Friend for raising such an important question. We know that families want to be able to access affordable out-of-school childcare, and that is particularly important during the school summer holidays, so our manifesto commitment is to establish a new £1 billion fund from next year to help to create more accessible childcare, including before school, after school and in the summer school holidays. As with all future commitments, this is dependent on the outcome of the spending review, and I hope to be able to update the House with further details following the spending review.

Laura Farris: Nurseries in west Berkshire suffered a loss of fee income during the lockdown, and they are now anxious about a reduction in parental demand. They are grateful for the guaranteed funding until the end of this year, but what assessment has my hon. Friend made of the recovery of parental demand, and what assurances can she give the sector for the rest of the academic year?

Vicky Ford: May I start by thanking childcare providers in west Berkshire and across the country for providing such essential support for our very youngest children? This term, we have committed to block buying those hours from providers, provided that they are open, regardless of how many children are attending, and local authorities should pass that funding on. We are obviously looking closely at the situation from next term, and the future funding will be dependent on the funding review, but the really good news is that attendance is increasing and, on 1 October, the numbers showed that it was about 80% of the pre-covid usual daily level of attendance.

Tulip Siddiq: Data from Ofsted shows that the number of nurseries and other childcare providers with coronavirus cases has, on average, been doubling every week since the start of September, yet many early years workers cannot access covid tests or get quick results, which is forcing them to stay at home. I have heard from a nursery in Surrey that has been forced to close as a result, affecting 40 children and depriving their parents of childcare. Will the Minister confirm whether childcare workers still qualify for priority testing? If so, why are they not getting it?

Vicky Ford: Yes, I can absolutely confirm that education and childcare workers, including those in the early years, are essential workers and have priority access, via the online booking portal. That has been the case since April.

Further Education: Public Transport and Covid-19

Navendu Mishra: What discussions he has had with the Secretary of State for Transport on the availability of public transport for young people in further education during the covid-19 outbreak.

Gillian Keegan: We have been working closely with the Secretary of State for Transport to ensure that young people can travel and continue to travel to their place of education during the coronavirus pandemic. We have made £44 million available to fund additional dedicated transport to schools and colleges, and we will announce additional funding shortly.

Navendu Mishra: Does the Minister accept that the Government have a responsibility to ensure that local authorities have the funds available to operate low-cost travel schemes, such as the System One scheme in Greater Manchester? Does she agree that it is unacceptable for the Treasury to simply devolve cuts, which will ultimately have an impact on young people?

Gillian Keegan: Of course we have taken very seriously the issue of ensuring that children can get to school and colleges; there has been not only an extra £2 billion in funding to help people to walk to school and to make it safe for them to get to school, but £44 million for dedicated transport. So the Treasury is putting a lot of investment into this area.

Home Learning: Covid-19

Siobhain McDonagh: What estimate he has made of the number of school children that did not have access to (a) a laptop or  (b) another device to facilitate home learning when schools were closed during the covid-19 lockdown.

Gavin Williamson: As part of £160 million invested to support remote education, more than 220,000 laptops and tablets have already been delivered, with 40,000 routers additional to that. We are now supplementing this support by making available 250,000 additional devices in the event  that face-to-face schooling is disrupted. This represents an injection of nearly half a million laptops and tablets for those most in need.

Siobhain McDonagh: But from 22 October schools will be required to provide remote education to those pupils isolating because of coronavirus. Ofcom estimates that up to 1.78 million children in the UK have no access to a laptop, desktop or tablet at home, and this policy will fail them. With less than two weeks until the changes, how can the education of those children be guaranteed? Is it not time to ensure that every child entitled to a free school meal is provided with internet access and an adequate device at home?

Gavin Williamson: The hon. Lady will probably be familiar with our policy and the fact that we have set up support for schools that will have to provide remote education for children, whereby we are making sure that those children from the most disadvantaged backgrounds are properly supported by this programme and investment of half a million laptops.

Online Education: Children and Covid-19

Mark Logan: What steps his Department is taking to help ensure children who are self-isolating during the covid-19 outbreak receive high-quality online education.

Karl McCartney: What steps his Department is taking to help ensure children who are self-isolating during the covid-19 outbreak receive high-quality online education.

Nick Gibb: Although the vast majority of children are back in the classroom, we have made 250,000 laptops and tablets available in the event that face-to-face education is disrupted, building on more than 220,000 already delivered to those most in need. We have also made resources available to schools to deliver high-quality online education, alongside the Government-funded Oak National Academy, which is providing video lessons across a broad range of subjects.

Mark Logan: What measures are this Government putting in place to ensure that disadvantaged children right across Bolton have extra online support to get them through the winter of covid and put a spring in their step in 2021?

Nick Gibb: It is vital that students have a spring in their step and that they have access to high-quality remote education, so we have invested more than £160 million in connectivity, devices and support—including more than 980 laptops and tablets to Bolton Council—alongside additional devices delivered to academy trusts. We are now making available 250,000 more devices nationwide in the event of further disruption. My hon. Friend will be pleased to know that Bolton schools and academies have already received more than £1 million in their first catch-up premium payment.

Karl McCartney: Covid-19 has had a detrimental effect on some of the most underprivileged children in our society. My right hon. Friend will remember a Westminster Hall debate in September 2016 on this issue.  A white working-class boy—an example who represents a substantial proportion of pupil numbers in Lincoln—is 10% less likely to participate in higher education than any other ethnic group or gender. What is my right hon. Friend doing, and what has he done, to ensure that we close this gap and that the ongoing pandemic does not make the situation worse?

Nick Gibb: I do remember that important debate that my hon. Friend secured. I share his determination to see the academic attainment gap between disadvantaged pupils—including white working-class boys—and others closed. That determination has been at the core of all our education reforms since 2010, particularly in respect of the focus on phonics in the teaching of reading, the evidence-based approach to the teaching of maths, and a more knowledge-based curriculum. Since 2011, the attainment gap between disadvantaged pupils and others has narrowed by 13% at key stage 2 and by 9% at key stage 4. The £1 billion catch-up premium, with £350 million specifically targeted towards disadvantaged students, is designed to address the widening attainment gaps caused by measures taken to tackle the covid pandemic.

Online Learning: Universities and Covid-19

Richard Burgon: What steps he is taking to help ensure university students have access to digital and online learning during the covid-19 outbreak.

Michelle Donelan: The Government are working to ensure that all students have access to digital learning, including by helping providers to draw upon the existing funding of £256 million for the year 2020-21 to go towards the purchase of IT equipment and wider hardship support. The Government expect universities to continue to deliver high-quality academic experiences for all students.

Richard Burgon: The Secretary of State should have seen the new analysis today that shows that infection rates on university campuses are up to seven times higher than those in surrounding areas. There are fears that this will spread the virus to higher-risk groups in the local community. The Government should have moved teaching online before term started, as the University and College Union recommended. Will the Minister accept the Government’s error in not doing so and instruct universities to move to online learning as the default? Or will she and the Government continue to play Russian roulette with the lives of students, staff and local communities?

Michelle Donelan: The Government have prioritised education. We do not believe it would be right to put students’ lives and academic journeys on hold. Although only a small proportion of university populations have covid, it is an awful experience for every student who is having to self-isolate, which is why it is so important that support—from providing food to mental health and wellbeing support—is there for those students. I was pleased to see the Universities UK statement last week detailing the sector’s commitment to that support, which is in line with exactly what the Government expect.

Emma Hardy: In the Education Select Committee sitting last Tuesday, the Minister was unable to answer how many students are self-isolating and therefore totally reliant on accessing digital and online learning. She was also unable to answer how many students have covid-19; how we will ensure that tests are available to students; when the two-week late “imminent” guidance, with robust frequently asked questions on students returning home for Christmas, will be published; or even how many students are currently learning only online. What impact does the Minister think her Government’s incompetence and inability to answer basic questions about covid-19 in our universities is having on the spread of the virus in university towns and cities?

Michelle Donelan: I will begin with the Christmas guidance, which is certainly not late—I am sure the hon. Lady will understand that it is important that we get this right. I am working with the sector, with a sub-working group—the taskforce—to identify the issues and ensure that comprehensive guidance is forthcoming. That commitment to students on Christmas remains. Around 9,000 students currently have covid. This is the data that has been sent to us by universities. It is the cumulative number of cases over the past seven days and is based on a student population of about 2 million. Public Health England informs us that 68 universities have outbreaks. We will go back to those universities to ascertain that data and, as of next week, working with the Office for Students, there will be a new data regime, which will be much more transparent.

Children with SEND: Covid-19

Vicky Foxcroft: What steps he is taking to support children with special educational needs and disabilities returning to school during the covid-19 outbreak.

Vicky Ford: Children with special educational needs and disabilities have faced many challenges during the pandemic, and some of them will find returning to school difficult, but the good news is that more than 80% of those with education, health and care plans are now attending. We have published guidance and resources to support schools to re-engage pupils with learning. We are increasing high-needs funding by a nearly quarter—a record amount—over a two-year period and we are also providing an additional £1 billion in catch-up support for schools.

Vicky Foxcroft: I asked the Education Secretary on 2 July and again on 7 September about support for children with SEND during the covid-19 catch-up. He said that he would write to me, but that letter has not been forthcoming. I ask again: what assisted technology is being offered as part of the distribution of laptops and tablets to enable pupils to work from home if needed? Will the Minister provide an answer this time or will I have to do this again next month?

Vicky Ford: I am enormously proud of the fact that we are one of the few countries in the world that have asked schools to remain open for vulnerable children, including those with the most severe disabilities. Although  we know that they could not all attend due to their own circumstances, it is incredibly important that they all get back to schools. On remote learning, to support schools in delivering remote education, we have delivered a range of resources and guidance, including specific support for children and young people with SEND. Obviously, those who were eligible for laptops, receive laptops and devices as part of that programme.

Access to Education: Local Lockdowns

Stuart Anderson: What steps he is taking to help ensure that access to education for all children is maintained during local covid-19 lockdowns.

Gavin Williamson: The Department is committed to the continuation of high quality education for all pupils. We have asked that every school plan for the possibility of local restrictions to ensure continuity of education. We have published a direction, which provides an express legal duty on schools to provide remote education where needed.

Stuart Anderson: In our mission to level up, I am keen to ensure that every child has the resources and support that they need to thrive. What is the Secretary of State doing to ensure that the most vulnerable children and those with complex needs, such as the wonderful children at Penn Fields in my constituency, can have everything that they need to thrive during this time?

Gavin Williamson: My hon. Friend and constituency neighbour is right to highlight the brilliant work at Penn Fields School that serves not only his constituents, but mine as well. I will, if I may, also highlight the wonderful work of Wightwick Hall School, which is in my constituency and also serves his constituents as well. They are doing an amazing job during this pandemic, but it is right to ask how we can support them more. That is why, in terms of covid catch-up funding, the support that we are providing for those special schools is three times the rate of that going to mainstream schools, which recognises the extra challenges that they have to deal with.

A-Levels: Covid-19

Henry Smith: What steps he is taking to help ensure fairness in A-level exams in the 2020-21 academic year following the disruption of the covid-19 outbreak.

Nick Gibb: Exams are the fairest form of assessment. Ofqual has confirmed changes to A-level assessment content, and we have announced today a short delay in the exam timetable to free up teaching time to ensure that exams remain a fair assessment for all.

Henry Smith: Significant concessions were under- standably made for A-level graduates this year because of covid-19, but what plans are being developed  to ensure that next year’s A-level students are not disadvantaged in terms of university places?

Nick Gibb: The Government and universities understand what a difficult time young people have had. We are committed to working together to support the 2021 cohort: that is a key priority. We are also working with Ofqual and the exam boards to consider our approach to exams and assessments in 2021.

University Teaching and Student Services: Covid-19

Tom Randall: What recent steps he has taken to help ensure that universities can deliver safe (a) teaching and (b) student services during the covid-19 outbreak.

Bim Afolami: What recent steps he has taken to help ensure that universities can deliver safe (a) teaching and (b) student services during the covid-19 outbreak.

Michelle Donelan: We announced a package of measures in May to support the sector. We have also issued guidance on reopening, reflecting advice from the Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies, and we have worked with universities to ensure that they have outbreak plans that are shared with their local Public Health England teams. We will shortly provide additional guidance on winter planning and end-of-term preparations.

Tom Randall: A constituent of mine who is also an associate lecturer at Nottingham Trent University wrote to me to say that a safe start to the new academic year would be a boost in a year that has been awful in so many ways. Why was it important to reopen universities? Does my hon. Friend agree with my constituent’s suggestion that specific testing and monitoring systems for universities might help to provide a safety net for very close-knit groups?

Michelle Donelan: This Government have prioritised education. We simply cannot ask students to put their lives, or their academic journeys, on hold. To do so would mean removing opportunities, damaging social mobility and punishing young people. The education and welfare of students is at the forefront of all our decisions. That is why we have worked and continue to work with the Department of Health and Social Care to ensure that students get access to tests if symptomatic so that the trace work can kick in immediately.

Bim Afolami: Last week I spoke to several constituents who are students at university. As per the Minister’s answer, I think it is fair to say that education and welfare, in many respects, leaves a lot to be desired. Could she and the Department help me to understand why several universities are not giving face-to-face teaching at all, even in an appropriate socially distanced way; are being extremely draconian in the way that certain students are being treated in terms of their social contact, which is a critical part of being at university; and, in some cases, are even charging £18 a day for food parcels? Could the Minister put appropriate pressure on universities—not all of them but those that are not performing—to sort this out?

Michelle Donelan: Universities are offering blended learning unless they have moved to a higher covid tier, in conjunction with their local Public Health England team. But let me be clear: no university should seek to profit from students self-isolating, and reported charges  of £18 a day for food parcels are quite simply outrageous. Students self-isolating in catered halls should receive free food, while other students should receive food that is either free—as many universities, including Sheffield Hallam and Edge Hill, are doing—or at a price that can be afforded within a student’s budget. I have spoken to many universities on this, and I am also writing to them to make the point.

Special Schools: Covid-19

Sir David Amess: What steps his Department is taking to support special schools during the covid-19 outbreak.

Gavin Williamson: We have published specific guidance to support the full opening of special schools. Recognising the additional challenges that they face, we have announced a package of support worth £1 billion, which includes a £650 million catch-up premium with additional weighting for specialist settings. We are also increasing the high needs funding by an additional £1.5 billion over this year and next.

Sir David Amess: I visited the excellent Fairways Primary School in my constituency this morning. I have also been contacted by two special schools, Estuary High School, which is having difficulty in getting tests for their students in their residential homes, and Kingsdown School, which is very worried about the new guidance issued on 28 August in terms of social distancing. Will my right hon. Friend look at those two points for me, please?

Gavin Williamson: All schools are issued with sets of testing kit, and they have the ability to order more via the NHS portal. I would be very happy to look at the two points highlighted by my hon. Friend.

Schools: Covid-19 Costs

Anthony Mangnall: What steps the Government are taking to support schools that have incurred additional costs during the covid-19 outbreak.

Ellie Reeves: What recent discussions he has had with school leaders on providing financial support for additional costs incurred by schools during the covid-19 outbreak.

Nick Gibb: Schools have continued to receive their core funding throughout the covid-19 outbreak and have been able to claim funds to meet certain exceptional costs in the period between March and July. We have so far paid out £58 million to schools, with further payments due later this autumn, and we are also providing £1 billion in catch-up funding. The Department and Ministers regularly meet school leaders on a range of covid-19 issues, including in relation to costs faced by schools.

Anthony Mangnall: I have been going back to school, and in doing so I have been speaking to a number of headteachers and principals who are increasingly alarmed about the costs they have incurred on PPE spend. What is the Minister doing to assure them that their budgets will not be stripped and that they will be able to recoup some of those losses?

Nick Gibb: Schools have continued to receive their core funding and should be using that to support their covid-19 expenditure. They have also been able to claim up to £75,000 to meet certain exceptional costs in that period between March and July. Brixham College and King Edward VI Community College have applied to the exceptional costs funds, and King Edward VI has received payments and Brixham will be receiving payments shortly.

Ellie Reeves: Headteachers in my constituency tell me they are having to invest significantly in extra cleaning procedures and safety measures, as well as extra staff to cover periods of self-isolation. Further, many schools have also lost reliable income streams from hiring out spaces and fundraising events. Even before covid-19, school budgets were already stretched after years of cuts. With the pandemic set to continue, will the Minister commit today to extra funds for schools in the months to come?

Nick Gibb: This year is the first of a three-year funding settlement for schools. It is the largest increase in school funding for more than a decade, with £2.6 billion more funding for schools this year. In the hon. Lady’s constituency, pupil-led funding will rise by 2.2% this year.

Margaret Greenwood: Last week, the Schools Minister told me, as he has just alluded to, that schools have already submitted claims for £148 million for help with the extra covid-related costs they faced between March and July. As he just said, the Government have so far paid £58 million to schools for help during that period. Why is it that the Government accept that schools needed that additional help with covid costs earlier in the year, but are now ignoring pleas from headteachers for the resources they need for covid-related costs from September onwards? When will the Government recognise the significant extra costs of supply teachers required when staff self-isolate?

Nick Gibb: The hon. Lady is right that schools have been able to claim for exceptional covid-related costs for that period of March to July. Our priority now, as schools reopen to all pupils, is to target the available extra funding on catch-up, supporting schools to help all pupils to catch-up lost teaching time when schools were closed to most pupils. The £1 billion catch-up funding includes £650 million distributed on a per pupil basis to all schools, which means that a typical 1,000-pupil secondary school will receive £80,000 in extra funding this year. That is on top of the three-year funding settlement that I mentioned earlier—the biggest funding boost for schools in a decade.

SEND Education Funding

Stephen McPartland: What recent assessment he has made of the effectiveness of funding arrangements for SEND education.

Vicky Ford: We are putting an extra £730 million into funding those with complex special educational needs and disabilities next year, which represents a 10% increase year-on-year in the high needs block, and that comes on  top of the £780 million increase for this year, which means that the block will have grown by £1.5 billion, which is an increase of nearly a quarter. In Hertfordshire, funding for the high needs block will grow by 24% over that two-year period.

Stephen McPartland: I welcome the increased Government funding in Hertfordshire, but the county council does not pass it through to families on the frontline. It is cutting funding to our Delivering Special Provision Locally groups. Our child and mental health services are overwhelmed. It is focusing on process, instead of our children with SEND. Will the Minister undertake a review of the real accessibility of SEND services in Hertfordshire and help me hold the council to account, so that we can fix SEND in Hertfordshire?

Vicky Ford: I thank my hon. Friend for his concern for the young people of Hertfordshire and their families. The Government are undertaking a major review of the special educational needs and disabilities system. It is a major priority for the Government and we are considering improvements to make sure that the SEND system is consistent, high quality and integrated across education, health and care and, importantly, that it works with parents, carers and families to make sure that they and their children are at the heart of the system.

Apprenticeships

John Howell: What steps his Department is taking to increase the number of apprenticeships.

Gillian Keegan: I thank my hon. Friend for his question and for his support for apprenticeships. Apprenticeships will be more important than ever to support our economic recovery and help businesses to recruit the right people and develop the skills they need to recover and grow. To support employers to offer new apprenticeships, they can now claim £2,000 for every new apprentice they hire under the age of 25 and £1,500 for those aged over 25.

John Howell: As a country, we rightly champion our wonderful universities. However, we are often too slow—particularly in schools—to promote apprenticeships. Will my hon. Friend assure me that she is doing everything in her power to ensure that apprenticeships are seen as a valid part of our education system?

Gillian Keegan: I can reassure my hon. Friend that, as a former apprentice, this is very much at the forefront of my focus. The Prime Minister and the Chancellor have made it clear that further education is now more important than ever. That is part of the reason we are introducing once-in-a-generation reforms of the FE system through our skills White Paper, underpinning the progress we are already making with T-levels, which is backed by £500 million of funding per year, investing £1.5 billion in the transformation of the FE college estate, investing £2.5 billion through the national skills fund and introducing a new entitlement for adults without qualifications at level 3.

Toby Perkins: The Minister is right to say that apprenticeships are more important than ever, but for all the rhetoric, the way that the Government introduced the apprenticeship levy saw  level 2 and level 3 apprenticeship numbers falling to their lowest level for a decade before coronavirus. Since then, we have seen generous incentives in the new kickstart scheme and much less generous incentives for apprenticeships. For all that the Minister says, why do this Government consistently introduce policies that have the effect of reducing the numbers doing level 2 and 3 apprenticeships?

Gillian Keegan: The hon. Gentleman refers, I think, to the switch from frameworks to standards, which did have an impact on some of the numbers, but it was most important that we focused on the quality of apprenticeships. There were a number of apprenticeships early on, when we introduced the reform of the system, that were not of the desired quality. Young people put their trust in us, in the apprenticeship provider and in the employer, and it is most important that they get very high-quality apprenticeships; that is our focus.

University STEM Subjects

Virginia Crosbie: What steps his Department is taking to encourage more people to take up STEM subjects at university.

Michelle Donelan: The Government encourage the study of science, technology, engineering and maths at all stages, which is vital for our economy and to drive productivity. In higher education, we are removing loan funding barriers for part-time STEM study at equivalent or lower levels and piloting graduate conversion courses for studying engineering, computer science and artificial intelligence.

Virginia Crosbie: In my constituency of Ynys Môn, I am working with Coleg Menai, M-SParc and the team at Bangor University to organise an innovation jobs fair. How is the Minister encouraging innovative companies such as Dyson to invest in the next generation?

Michelle Donelan: Dyson’s UK site is based just outside my constituency, and I must declare that it has twice sponsored the Wiltshire Festival of Engineering, which I have organised. I am delighted that, as of last week, the pioneering Dyson Institute will be able to award its own degrees. A business taking this step is revolutionary, and I hope that many more will follow, to give students a much more diverse choice in higher education and ensure that we can deliver the skills that this country needs.

Religious Education: Maintained Schools

Janet Daby: What steps he is taking to ensure maintained schools comply with requirements to teach religious education.

Nick Gibb: Maintained schools are required to teach religious education to all five to 18-year-olds. Any concerns that a maintained school is not meeting that duty should first go through the school’s complaints procedure, and if the complaint is not resolved, the issue can be escalated to the Department’s school complaints unit.

Janet Daby: Religious education helps children to grow up with an understanding of and respect for people from different religious, ethnic and cultural backgrounds. It is also a statutory requirement, but the Religious Education Council tells me that 40% of all schools give no hours to RE in year 11. Does the Minister agree that the Department needs to better support schools to ensure that they are meeting their obligations to teach RE?

Nick Gibb: I agree with the hon. Member. Good quality religious education can help to develop children’s knowledge of the values and traditions of Britain and other countries, and foster understanding among different faiths and cultures. At a national level, the proportion of time secondary schools spend teaching RE has actually remained broadly stable. It was 3.2% of all teaching hours in 2010 and 3.3% in 2019.

Summer 2021 Year 11 Exams

Caroline Nokes: What steps his Department has taken to plan and prepare for arrangements for year 11 exams at the end of the 2020-21 academic year.

Nick Gibb: We continue to believe that exams are the fairest form of assessment. Today we announced our plans for next summer’s year 11 exams to take place—the GCSEs—and we will work with Ofqual to engage the sector in planning for a range of scenarios of potential disruption to exams to ensure students get the results they deserve.

Caroline Nokes: I welcome my right hon. Friend’s written statement today and thank him for ending the uncertainty that was facing pupils, teachers and parents alike. Please can he reassure constituents such as one of mine, 15-year-old Charlotte, who wrote to me a couple of weeks ago and inspired this question today, that next year’s exams will take into account the disruption there has been to their learning, while allowing them to demonstrate their ability and what they have learned over the past few years, and please will he reassure her that further detail as to how that will be achieved will be coming very soon?

Nick Gibb: My right hon. Friend raises an important point. We do believe that the subject level changes to the content of assessment that was confirmed by Ofqual recently will reduce the pressure on students and free up teaching time. Combined with the timing changes to exams announced today, this does free up more teaching time to help address any unfairness. On top of that, as I have said before, there is the £1 billion catch-up fund, and we will have more to say later in the autumn about the issue of grading.

Disadvantaged Children: Educational Attainment

Debbie Abrahams: What steps he is taking to (a) improve the wellbeing of disadvantaged children and (b) close the educational attainment gap.

Mohammad Yasin: What steps he is taking to (a) improve the wellbeing of disadvantaged children and (b) close the educational attainment gap.

Gareth Thomas: What steps he is taking to (a) improve the wellbeing of disadvantaged children and (b) close the educational attainment gap.

Gavin Williamson: We are taking unprecedented action to help schools support wellbeing, including wellbeing for education return training, and world-leading trials on ways to promote mental health wellbeing. Disadvantaged pupils will receive high-quality tuition through the £350 million national tutoring programme, and we continue to provide schools with the £2.4 billion pupil premium.

Debbie Abrahams: We have seen the educational attainment gap between disadvantaged and advantaged children widen over the past decade, especially for children with special educational needs and disabilities. On top of this, earlier this year we heard from the Education Policy Institute that this attainment gap had widened during covid. What is the Secretary of State’s assessment of the impact of covid on levelling up for SEND children?

Gavin Williamson: I think the hon. Lady and I have a shared passion to make sure that we close that gap, making sure that children, wherever they are born anywhere in the United Kingdom, have the very best opportunities in life. As the Prime Minister himself said, talent and ability are evenly spread in this country, but opportunity has not always been so. In an earlier answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton South West (Stuart Anderson), I touched on the fact that there is a three times weighting for children with special educational needs in terms of the covid catch-up fund, making sure that extra support is channelled that way. I am sure that the hon. Lady has welcomed the announcements we made not just last year but this year which saw a total of £1.5 billion-worth of extra funding being channelled into high need funding in this country over this year and next year.

Mohammad Yasin: The programmes that exist to encourage and inspire bright pupils from disadvantaged backgrounds to access top universities have been severely impacted this year. The application deadline for Oxbridge medicine and dentistry is this Thursday. What action is the Secretary of State taking to ensure that this year’s state school pupils, who have already been disadvantaged because of the reduced teaching time and mentoring, get a fair crack of the whip?

Gavin Williamson: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman welcomed the news this year that Oxford and Cambridge welcome more state school pupils than they have ever done before. We want to continue to build on that. We want to ensure that every higher education establishment makes sure that all the opportunities that they can offer are available to every single child, whatever background they come from.

Gareth Thomas: Tackling rising levels of food poverty would be one good way of improving the wellbeing of disadvantaged children and helping to raise educational attainment, so why will Ministers not extend the holiday hunger food vouchers programme to the half-term holiday and Christmas holidays?

Gavin Williamson: As well as the incredibly successful holiday activity programme that we saw rolled out across many areas of England, we are looking at what more we can do in these areas, while recognising the important role that schools play in supporting pupils in their learning but also supporting their families.

University Education: Covid-19

Ben Lake: What estimate he has made of the resources required by universities to support teaching and learning for students during the covid-19 outbreak.

Michelle Donelan: We are working across Government and closely with the higher education sector to provide both practical and financial support through the covid-19 outbreak. This includes publishing reopening guidance to universities informed by SAGE advice, lifting caps on domestic medicine and dentistry causes for 2020-21, and providing both additional capital and teaching grant funding.

Ben Lake: I thank the Minister for her response. She may be aware of concerns that the impact of the covid pandemic on the student experience will see higher non-completion rates, despite the best efforts of students and staff to continue teaching and learning throughout the outbreak. If non-completion rates were to increase, would the Government consider allocating additional financial support to universities to help cover the costs of non-completion?

Michelle Donelan: We have a taskforce that meets weekly, and non-completion is something we have discussed. It is imperative that we support students to continue and complete their courses, and that we unlock their future potential and opportunities. This Government are determined to stand by them and ensure that happens.

Topical Questions

Shaun Bailey: If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

Lindsay Hoyle: The Secretary of State is not here. Perhaps we will hear the supplementary question, as we have no further detail.

Shaun Bailey: For students in the Black Country, T-levels and technical education will be a vital part of our story when coming out of this crisis. My further education providers are committed to ensuring that we get this right, but there is some concern about the work experience time allocation element. Will my hon. Friend meet me and representatives from my fantastic FE college, Sandwell College, to discuss how we can ensure that this system works for students in the Black Country?

Michelle Donelan: T-levels are a fantastic initiative that the Government have rolled out, and I will certainly speak to the Skills Minister and meet my hon. Friend to discuss how this issue can be sorted.

Lindsay Hoyle: The shadow Secretary of State can now ask two questions to whichever Minister would like to take them.

Kate Green: Perhaps I could start by asking the Schools Minister a question, since he is here. The Secretary of State has repeatedly said that every child would return to school in September, and I support him in that ambition. Being safely back in school is best for children’s wellbeing and learning. Latest figures show that one in 10 pupils are out of school, as bubbles and year groups are forced to isolate whenever a child or a member of staff tests positive for covid. Worryingly, attendance at special schools is down at just over 80%, and some teachers report that parents are withdrawing their children altogether to home-school them.
We are not even at the start of winter, yet hundreds of thousands of children are already having their learning disrupted. We all agree that a functional test and trace system is crucial to keep teachers and children safely in schools. How many pupils and staff are currently waiting for a test result or are forced to isolate? Why have the Government not included school pupils on the list of priority groups for testing, as the schools Minister promised?

Nick Gibb: Teachers and headteachers up and down the country have done a tremendous job of getting children back to school, and 99.8% of schools are open in this country. In special schools some 80% of children with education, health and care plans are in school, and we kept schools open for children with EHC plans throughout our tackling of the pandemic. We have a very successful test and trace scheme, which is why we are able to pinpoint local outbreaks, and why we have statistics about outbreaks up and down the country. By the end of the month we intend—

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. I say to those on both Front Benches that topical questions are meant to be short and punchy, not full-blown questions. If people want full-blown questions they should ask them earlier. I have to get through topicals. I call the shadow Secretary of State to ask a question to the Secretary of State.

Kate Green: I welcome the Secretary of State to his place. On 1 October, he said that people must be given
“the opportunity to retrain and upskill”—[Official Report, 1 October 2020; Vol. 681, c. 541.]
but it has now been announced that his Department will be scrapping the union learning fund, which supports hundreds of thousands of learners each year, many with little or no formal education. That scheme benefits workers, our economy and business, so getting rid of it must be either astonishing incompetence or playing shameless politics with people’s life chances. Which is it, and will the Secretary of State rethink this wrong-headed initiative?

Gavin Williamson: It probably wasn’t worth the wait, Mr Speaker.
It is very kind of the hon. Lady to read out the press release that the TUC sent her, but the reality is that we are investing more in skills and further education than  ever before. That is why we are investing over £1.5 billion in capital in further education. That is why we are investing more in level 3 A-level equivalent qualifications. That is why we are driving opportunities forward. I will not apologise; if we think we can spend money that was previously channelled to the TUC in a better way to deliver more opportunities in our colleges, yes, we will do it in a better way, and that is what we are doing.

Lindsay Hoyle: May I just say that the Secretary of State will apologise to the House, because it was rather discourteous of him to disappear?

Craig Whittaker: Many large companies that are net contributors to the apprenticeship levy are in the process of making redundancies among apprentices because of the downturn with the pandemic. In sectors such as aviation, we see valuable engineering apprentices being made redundant by big names such as Virgin and Ryanair. Will my right hon. Friend look with the Treasury at whether, for a limited period only during the pandemic, instead of making apprentices redundant, struggling sectors could use the apprenticeship levy to pay apprentices and to keep them employed and developing their skills?

Gavin Williamson: Mr Speaker, I apologise for being a little late. I got waylaid by a colleague asking a question outside the Chamber, and I did not realise the speed at which you were working through the Order Paper; it was so much more efficient than the last Speaker.
My hon. Friend the Member for Calder Valley (Craig Whittaker) raises a really important question about apprenticeships and ensuring that we support youngsters who may find themselves in a situation with the company that they are working for where they are not in a position to complete their apprenticeship. That is why we are working very closely across Government to put in place measures to ensure that if a youngster, or anyone of any age, is in a position where they would not be able to complete their apprenticeship, they can do so, and to support employers to continue to take on apprentices. That includes the up to £2,000 that employers can benefit from by taking on apprentices.

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. It is not my efficiency; 3.15 pm is when topicals start.

Carol Monaghan: I was delighted to hear last week that the Scottish Tories now support the Scottish National party’s policy on free university tuition. I am sure the Secretary of State will welcome that U-turn, but can he confirm that the United Kingdom Internal Market Bill will not undermine the ability of the Scottish Government to set university fees in Scotland, or to continue providing free university tuition?

Gavin Williamson: The hon. Lady seems always  to miss the point that we live in a United Kingdom of  four nations together, where there is one single market, and that we have to ensure that there is efficient and proper use of that market so that all four nations properly benefit.

Cherilyn Mackrory: In my constituency, our secondary schools are near full capacity. With bigger year groups to come as the population of Cornwall continues to grow, will my right hon. Friend work with me to explore the option of a new free secondary school for the children of my constituency?

Gavin Williamson: My hon. Friend raises such an important point about the importance of having the right provision in Cornwall for her constituents. When I visited her constituency, I saw how she was campaigning so hard to get the very best for all her constituents. I would be very happy to meet her to discuss this further and to discuss how best to ensure that we deliver the brilliant provision she is always rightly fighting for.

Jonathan Gullis: By the end of this year, Stoke-on-Trent will have completed a 104-km city-wide full fibre network capable of gigabit speeds. We have the ambition to create a UK-leading digital academy in Stoke-on-Trent that offers something truly unique to young people, like the BRIT School in London does, and to have every school and college across Stoke-on-Trent connected to the full fibre network. Does my right hon. Friend share my excitement at this opportunity, and can he help us make it a reality?

Gavin Williamson: I do not just share my hon. Friend’s enthusiasm; I am right there with him, cheering it on and making sure that it happens. I pay tribute to him and other brilliant Conservative colleagues in Stoke-on-Trent, including of course the Conservative leader of Stoke-on-Trent City Council, Councillor Abi Brown, who has been driving this forward so hard. We want to see all schools having that connectivity and the benefits that the internet can bring for every single child in our schools.

Jeff Smith: I was at Chorlton High School in my constituency on Friday, where over a third of pupils have either no or very limited digital access. It is a similar pattern across Greater Manchester. More laptops are fine, but they are no good without decent broadband, so what more can the Government do to guarantee—perhaps with the internet providers—broadband access for pupils who are out of school during this emergency?

Gavin Williamson: The hon. Gentleman raises an important point. When we looked at the provision of support for children, especially the most disadvantaged, we were looking at the equipment not just in terms of laptops or tablets, but the routers that go with them. We have also been working, along with colleagues from the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, with major internet providers on how we ensure that that provision is available for all youngsters across the country.

Stuart Anderson: Will the Secretary of State join me in thanking all the schools across Wolverhampton for the exceptional job that they have done in the hardest of conditions and, when time permits, will he join me in visiting King’s, Woodthorne or other great schools  in Wolverhampton?

Gavin Williamson: It looks as if I will be spending the day with my hon. Friend as we tour Wolverhampton, which would be an absolute delight. I look forward to joining him in doing that. Let me take the opportunity to thank not just those teachers, support staff and parents but, most importantly, the children, who have ensured that the return of schools has been such a success, with so many children getting back to school and having the opportunity to learn. Despite the efforts of some, this has been a success, and children are the ones who are benefiting more than any others.

Alistair Carmichael: Some 1.7 million children across the whole of the United Kingdom have no access to a desktop, laptop or tablet devices for learning while away from school. That is the scale of the digital divide in this country. The impact of that will be with us for some years to come. What are Ministers doing, along with their colleagues in the devolved Administrations, to ensure that we close that gap once and for all?

Nick Gibb: We take this issue very seriously. We have already supplied 220,000 laptops and tablets to schools and local authorities up and down the country—one of the biggest procurements of computer devices in this country. We have plans in place for another 250,000 laptops, and £160 million has been spent ensuring that people have access to the internet should they need to self-isolate. However, at the moment, 99.8% of schools are open and 90% of pupils are in school learning with their teachers.

Matt Western: The Secretary of State claimed that more funding had gone into education than ever before, but he will know that real-terms funding for further education colleges has fallen by 9% since 2013-14 to 2018-19. Will he meet me and Warwickshire College Group to discuss its financial situation?

Gavin Williamson: I pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman’s predecessor, Chris White, who is involved in the Warwickshire College Group and has already made representations to me on this matter. We recognise that the college sector plays an important role. That is why we have been increasing the rate of support and funding. We will continue to work with the sector to ensure not just its future stability but its future success.

Mark Eastwood: My right hon. Friend has done great work making thousands of laptops, tablets and 4G routers available to disadvantaged school pupils; however, colleges such as Kirklees College in Dewsbury do not qualify for the scheme and have to use their own funds to support their students. Does he recognise that these are tough times for colleges, and will he assure me that he will continue to look at ways to support them?

Gavin Williamson: That is why we have given extra flexibilities to colleges and made learner support funds available for devices and to cover connectivity costs, which is an issue that some students have faced. Further education must be at the heart of our recovery from this pandemic, as it is able to reach into many communities that, in the past, have been left behind. It will not only  create life chances and opportunities for many young people, but will drive productivity across all parts of the United Kingdom. To ensure that we deliver on that, I look forward to working with my hon. Friend, who is a passionate advocate of further education colleges not just in his constituency but across the country.

Kerry McCarthy: I hope the Secretary of State is aware of the Children’s Commissioner’s recent report, “Unregulated”, about children in care living in unregulated, semi-independent accommodation. Next month I am introducing a ten-minute rule Bill that seeks to regulate the supported housing sector. I urge him to speak to his colleagues in the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government to see whether we can all join together to support such vulnerable people.

Gavin Williamson: The hon. Lady speaks, rightly, with a passion and conviction on this issue that I share. We want to see this ended; we want to see this changed. It is not something that we can allow to continue. She will be aware of the Department’s consultation on the issue, and we look forward to publishing the results in the not-too-distant future. This is incredibly important,   as these children are from some of the most vulnerable backgrounds in the country, and we have a duty as a state to do everything we can to protect them.

Andrew Griffith: The purpose of the Office for Students is that
“every student has a fulfilling experience of higher education”.
In the light of the current difficulties faced by undergraduates, will the Secretary of State commit to a post-covid review of the OfS?

Gavin Williamson: I will work closely with the OfS to ensure that it is working with universities and that universities are delivering what students expect and require for their studies. We will always work closely with all government organisations to deliver the very best for students and ensure that universities deliver on students’ behalf.

Lindsay Hoyle: In order to allow the safe exit of hon. Members participating in this item of business and the safe arrival of those participating in the next, I am suspending the House for three minutes.
Sitting suspended.

Covid-19 Update

Boris Johnson: With permission, Mr Speaker, I will make a statement on our continuing fight against coronavirus and how we intend to fulfil our simultaneous objectives of saving lives and protecting the NHS while keeping our children in school and our economy running, thus protecting jobs and livelihoods.
This morning, the deputy chief medical officer set out the stark reality of the second wave of the virus. The number of cases has quadrupled in the last three weeks. There are now more people in hospital with covid than when we went into lockdown on 23 March, and deaths are already rising. Of course, there are those who say that on that logic, we should go back into a full national lockdown of indefinite duration, closing schools and businesses, telling people again to stay at home as we did in March, and once again shattering our lives and our society. I do not believe that would be the right course. We would not only deprive our children of their education, but we would do such damage to our economy as to erode our long-time ability to fund the NHS and other crucial public services.
On the other side of the argument, there are those who think that the patience of the public is now exhausted, that we should abandon the fight against covid, stand aside, let nature take her course and call a halt to these repressions of liberty. Of course, I understand those emotions. I understand the frustration of those who have been chafing under the restrictions and the sacrifices they have made. But if we were to follow that course and let the virus rip, the bleak mathematics dictate that we would suffer not only an intolerable death toll, but put such a huge strain on our NHS with an uncontrolled second spike, that our doctors and nurses would be simply unable to devote themselves to other treatments for cancer, heart disease and hundreds more illnesses that have already been delayed and would be delayed again, with serious long-term damage to the health of the nation.
I am afraid that it is no answer to say that we could let the virus take hold among the young and fit while shielding the elderly and vulnerable, because the virus would then spread with such velocity in the general population that there would be no way of stopping it spreading among the elderly. Even if the virus is less lethal for the under-60s, there will still be many younger people for whom, alas, it remains lethal.
We do not want to go back to another national lockdown; we cannot let the virus rip, so since June, we have followed a balanced approach, with the support of many Members across the House, to keep the R down while keeping schools and the economy going, and controlling the virus by changing our behaviour to restrict its spread. That is why we have the rule of six and restrictions such as the 10 pm closing time on our hospitality sector.
I take no pleasure whatsoever in imposing restrictions on those businesses, many of which have gone to great lengths to reopen as safely as possible. Nor do I want to stop people enjoying themselves. But we must act to save lives and the evidence shows that in changing our behaviour to restrict transmission between us, our actions are saving lives. Left unchecked, each person with the  virus will infect an average of between 2.7 and three others, but the Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies assesses that the current R nationally is between 1.2 and 1.5. So we are already suppressing that R to well below its natural level, which is why the virus is not spreading as quickly as it did in March, but we need to go further. In recent months we have worked with local leaders to counter local spikes with targeted restrictions. This local approach has inevitably produced different sets of rules in different parts of the country, which are now complex to understand and to enforce. So just as we simplified our national rules with the rule of six, we will now simplify and standardise our local rules by introducing a three-tiered system of local covid alert levels in England, set at medium, high and very high.
The medium alert level, which will cover most of the country, will consist of the current national measures. This includes the rule of six and the closure of hospitality at 10 pm.
The high alert level reflects the interventions in many local areas at the moment. This primarily aims to reduce household-to-household transmission, by preventing all mixing between different households or support bubbles indoors. In these areas, the rule of six will continue to apply outdoors, where it is harder for the virus to spread, in public spaces as well as private gardens. Most areas which are already subject to local restrictions will automatically move into the high alert level. As a result of rising infection rates, Nottinghamshire, east and west Cheshire and a small area of High Peak will also move into the high alert level.
The very high alert level will apply where transmission rates are rising most rapidly and where the NHS could soon be under unbearable pressure without further restrictions. In these areas the Government will set a baseline of prohibiting social mixing indoors and in private gardens, and, I am sorry to say, closing pubs and bars. We want to create the maximum possible local consensus behind this more severe local action, so in each area we will work with local government leaders on the additional measures which should be taken. This could lead to further restrictions on the hospitality, leisure, entertainment or personal care sectors, but retail, schools and universities will remain open.
As my right hon. Friend the Chancellor has set out, the Government will expand their unprecedented economic support to assist those affected by these decisions, extending our job support scheme to cover two thirds of the wages of those in any business that is required to close, and providing those businesses with a cash grant of up to £3,000 a month, instead of £1,500 every three weeks. We will also provide local authorities across England with around £1 billion of new financial support, on top of our £3.6 billion towns fund. And for “very high” areas, we will give further financial support for local test and trace and local enforcement, and assistance from the armed forces—not for enforcement, but rather to support local services, if desired in the local area.
I can report that we have been able to reach agreement with leaders in Merseyside. Local authorities in the Liverpool city region will move into the very high alert level from Wednesday. In addition to the baseline I have outlined—this is as well as pubs and bars—in Merseyside gyms and leisure centres, betting shops, adult gaming   centres and casinos will also close. I would like to put on record my thanks to Steve Rotheram and his colleagues for their co-operation in very difficult circumstances.
Engagement with other leaders in the north-west, the north-east and Yorkshire and the Humber is continuing. I know how difficult this is—they, like us, like everyone in this House, are grappling with very real dilemmas—but we cannot let the NHS fall over when lives are at stake. Let me repeat the offer that we are making to those local authorities: work with us on these difficult but necessary measures in the areas that are rated very high, in return for more support for local test and trace, more funding for local enforcement, the offer of help from the armed services, and the job support scheme, as announced by the Chancellor.
I believe not to act would be unforgivable, so I hope that rapid progress can be made in the coming days. Regulations for all three covid local alert levels are being laid today. They will be debated and voted on tomorrow, before coming into force on Wednesday.
We will also keep these measures under constant review, including a four-week sunset clause for interventions in very high areas. A postcode search on gov.uk, as well as the NHS covid-19 app, will show which local alert level applies in each area. We are also publishing updated guidance to explain what the covid alert levels mean for those who are clinically extremely vulnerable. While these levels specifically apply to England, we continue to work closely with the devolved Administrations to tackle this virus across the whole United Kingdom.
This is not how we want to live our lives, but this is the narrow path we have to tread between the social and economic trauma of a full lockdown and the massive human and, indeed, economic cost of an uncontained epidemic. With local, regional and national Government coming together in a shared responsibility and a shared effort to deliver ever better testing and tracing and ever more efficient enforcement of rules; with ever improving therapies and the mountains of personal protective equipment and the ventilators that we have stockpiled; and with all the lessons we have learned in the last few months, we are becoming better and better at fighting this virus.
Though I must warn the House again that the weeks and months ahead will continue to be difficult and will test the mettle of this country, I have no doubt at all that, together, we will succeed, and I commend this statement to the House.

Keir Starmer: I thank the Prime Minister for advance sight of his statement and for his telephone call earlier today.
We are at a critical moment—“a tipping point”, to quote the deputy chief medical officer. We have all seen the clear and alarming trend in infection rates. The virus is now spreading in all areas of the United Kingdom, though much faster in some areas than others. As the Prime Minister and the deputy chief medical officer said, there are more patients in hospital with covid today than when the country went into lockdown on 23 March, and deaths are rising. Nobody should be under any illusion about where this is heading or about the need for decisive action. The question today is whether the restrictions announced by the Prime Minister can bring  the country back from the brink and whether they can regain control of the virus and provide the support and confidence that local businesses and communities need.
That is how high the stakes now are, so we will consider the package, we will look at the small print of the Prime Minister’s statement, we will discuss them with local mayors, councillors and leaders in the areas most affected and we will scrutinise the economic package that sits alongside them. But I have to say to the Prime Minister that I am now deeply sceptical that the Government have actually got a plan to get control of this virus, to protect jobs or to regain public trust. We have tried to give the Prime Minister the benefit of the doubt, but it increasingly feels like the Prime Minister is several steps behind the curve and running to catch up with a virus that he lost control of long ago.
It was less than three weeks ago, on 22 September, that the Prime Minister came to this House to announce new restrictions. He said then that the measures he was introducing would
“curb the number of daily infections”
and that those restrictions were
“carefully judged to achieve the maximum reduction in the R number”. —[Official Report, 22 September 2020; Vol. 680, c. 797-98.]
That has not happened. Those measures have not worked. We would not be here today if they had.
There is a pattern here. On 1 July, the Prime Minister told us of his new whack-a-mole strategy to control local outbreaks. Twenty areas have now been in restrictions for more than two months, and 19 of them have seen their infection rates rise, some by very large amounts, so those measures have not worked either.
In May, the Prime Minister boasted of a “world-beating” track and trace system. He told us that it would be a “real game changer” in the fight against the virus. We have debated this many times since, but last week, the figures were the worst yet. The Prime Minister promised that 100% of test results would be turned around in 24 hours. The latest figure for in-person testing is just 24% being turned around in that period.
This serial failure, combined with the repeated leaks and briefings to newspapers in the past few days, have fatally eroded public confidence just when we need it most, so can the Prime Minister tell us what reassurance he can give us that these measures today will be sufficient to get the virus under control? Will he finally accept that trace and isolate should be handed over to local authorities, as we have been saying for months? Will he accept that the support packages announced by the Chancellor simply will not work for many thousands of people, particularly those on the minimum wage? There is huge anger about this in the areas under lockdown, and there is a huge gap in the Government’s plan. Will he confirm that Mayors, local leaders, council leaders and others will be fully involved in any future decisions?
Finally, I want to say this to the Prime Minister. I know that there will be some on his side who will oppose further restrictions, who will look at the data and tell him to disregard it or who will say that the cost of acting now is too high. I want to be clear: the worst thing that the Prime Minister can do is not act quickly and decisively enough, and keep coming back to this House every couple of weeks with a new plan that does not work and is not up to the scale of the task. We need to break that cycle, finally get on top of the virus and  rebuild public confidence. I hope that the measures announced today will do that, but the House and the country will be deeply sceptical about whether they can.

Boris Johnson: We have had a slight change of tack, in my view, from the right hon. and learned Gentleman, who has hitherto been willing to support the measures that the Government are putting in place to restrict the spread of coronavirus. We now see an equivocation; he wants it both ways. He said he supported the rule of six, and then his side refused to vote for it. He said he is unwilling to support the restrictions we placed on hospitality, and he continually runs down NHS test and trace. What he will not say is what he would do or exactly how he would propose to get this virus down without those kinds of restrictions. If he supports the tier 3 measures that Merseyside city region has rightly put into place today, he should say so. He should have the guts to say to local leaders across the country that he supports those measures and that he encourages them to go into tier 3.
It is a stunning silence that we have heard from the right hon. and learned Gentleman. We, by contrast, are working with those local leaders to put in place the measures that will protect their populations, protect the NHS, keep our economy moving and drive the virus down. That is our collective endeavour, and I strongly urge the right hon. and learned Gentleman to work out where he stands and to stop flip-flopping from one side to the next—or rather, to go back to his previous position, which was to support restrictive measures where necessary to drive the virus down.

Iain Duncan Smith: I welcome my right hon. Friend’s statement. I recognise that these are difficult times and that he has to make difficult and, I hope, balanced choices, balancing the economic damage against the need to save our fellow citizens. In all this, one positive point that has barely been referred to is that the death rate has fallen from 3% in June to 0.6% at the moment, which has to be seen as possibly part of what the Government are trying to do.
The Government’s strategy, quite legitimately, is therefore to drive down the infection rate—I understand that—while searching for a vaccine, so I simply want to raise a point that others including the scientific advisers have raised. There is a lot of talk at the moment about the two antivirals that have now arrived, remdesivir and ivermectin. Given the Government’s objective of driving down the infection rate, and given that the average age of death at the moment is 82.4, should we not make those antivirals much more widely available at the earliest opportunity, through GPs and every other doctor, in order to get them to people to reduce the likelihood of their going into hospital and dying?

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. May I just try to help everybody? We need short, punchy answers and questions, as that will help us to get through everybody on the list.

Boris Johnson: My right hon. Friend is, of course, right to say that we have better treatments, but, alas, the death rate has risen many times over—six times over—in the past few weeks and we have no choice in these circumstances, with more people being admitted to hospital every day, in order to get the virus down.

Ian Blackford: In recent weeks, we have all witnessed the worrying trends of infection, the upsurge in hospitalisations and, sadly, the increase in death. The danger of the virus is self-evident. We know that we are at a tipping point, so today must be a turning point, when we must once again act collectively and get back to the absolute priority of suppressing the virus, protecting the NHS and saving lives. So may I ask the Prime Minister: is the policy to bring the R rate below 1 through the highest-level interventions being proposed? Since the beginning, we have known that mass testing is vital. Any delays in the processing of tests slow the start of contact tracing. Can the Prime Minister advise what proportion of tests in the past seven days took longer than 48 hours to process? What steps are we taking to ensure that there is no backlog in processing from the Lighthouse labs?
If today is to be a turning point, the UK Government need to carry out another U-turn on financial support for workers. It is blindingly and blatantly unfair that just as health restrictions are being strengthened economic support is being weakened. The Chancellor needs finally to wake up to that logic. There must be no more last- minute, half-baked economic announcements. Even Tory Backbenchers in the north of England are calling for the furlough to be maintained at 80% of wage support. Will the Prime Minister give some certainty and security to businesses and workers? Will he finally instruct his Chancellor to extend the full furlough scheme beyond October? Businesses and workers must not pay the price for managing the lockdown with closures and unemployment when their businesses would be viable after these special measures.
Will the Prime Minister also confirm that devolved Administrations will be able to trigger the financial support directly without requiring approval from the UK Government when they choose to put an area under heightened restrictions to help reduce the spread of the virus?
Finally, on universal credit and support for the most vulnerable, last Wednesday at Prime Minister’s questions the Prime Minister suggested that I ask him again on his Government’s plan to maintain the lifeline of the uplift in UC support. So now that he has had another week to consider it, will he do the right thing and make the £20 UC uplift permanent?

Boris Johnson: On NHS Test and Trace, capacity has massively increased, to 312,000, as the right hon. Gentleman knows. He asked what steps we are taking. We are introducing new testing sites—I think it is 500 new testing sites—and we are introducing more labs for testing. He also asks what we can do to get the virus down and the measures we are taking. He is completely right that it depends on enforcement and on testing and tracing, but it also depends on each and every one of us following the guidance, working together to get the virus down. That is what I hope he will encourage everyone to do. On the excellent point he raises about support for businesses that are going to be affected by the latest measures, I would just stress that the Chancellor’s latest job support scheme, at 67%, is highly competitive with those of all other European countries and indeed it is more generous than many. We will continue to put our arms around every worker and every business in this country to the best of the ability of this country. On the  right hon. Gentleman’s specific point about universal credit, the uplift will remain present for the rest of this financial year.

Lindsay Hoyle: Just to help the House, I will finish the statement at 5.50 pm, so let us help each other.

Jeremy Hunt: This morning, it was announced that the routine testing of asymptomatic NHS staff in hotspot areas would start. This has been long advocated by the Health and Social Care Committee, and I thank the Prime Minister for the progress on it.
We all want to avoid a second national lockdown, which would be devastating for jobs. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the evidence from China, Korea and Italy is that the best way to avoid that is to have earlier, decisive, localised interventions, however difficult and unpalatable, and that today’s difficult decision is not, therefore, about a trade-off between jobs and health, but ultimately the best way to secure both?

Boris Johnson: My right hon. Friend is absolutely right in what he says, and I know that local leaders across the country will listen to him. I hope they will accept our offer and go into tier 3 where necessary.

Edward Davey: The Government have asked a lot from people during the pandemic: stay at home; close your business; do not be there at the death of a loved one. The British people have borne such sacrifice with grace and resilience; all they ask from the Government in return is clear communication and basic competence, yet it seems that their sacrifices have been squandered by the Government’s failure to build a robust test, trace and isolate system, or even to communicate competently. Will the Prime Minister promise that the new sacrifices he is asking of people today will not be squandered this time?

Boris Johnson: We are working hard with colleagues from all parties to get across our messages, and I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for the support that he has felt able to give for the measures we have outlined. I believe they can be very effective if they are delivered jointly with local authorities and local support. That is what we are working for, and I hope he will join us in that effort.

Kate Griffiths: Pubs throughout Burton and Uttoxeter will appreciate the support available to them through the job support scheme in the event of a local lockdown, but will my right hon. Friend consider the impact on breweries, which will not be eligible for the support but will have no pubs to sell to?

Boris Johnson: I understand the point that my hon. Friend makes. The regular job support scheme will of course be available to businesses that are open but not able to trade in the way that they would want.

Jeffrey M. Donaldson: We must of course do all we can to ensure that the NHS is able to cope with the current situation. I agree with the Prime Minister that a localised approach is the right one, while keeping schools and businesses open. On support for those who have so far not received support, will the Prime Minister commit to putting his arms around people who have not yet benefited from the various schemes that the Government have introduced?

Boris Johnson: We will always do what we can to improve the welfare system for those who are not benefiting, but I remind the House that the self-employed —the group we all care about very much—have so far received £13.5 billion of support. We will continue to look after them as well.

Philip Davies: One of the many reasons why the Prime Minister has proved himself such a formidable and popular politician over so many years has been his resolute belief in the common sense of the British people. Instead of a constant blizzard of arbitrary rules that will serve only to collapse the economy and destroy businesses and jobs, will he remind people of what is important—social distancing and washing hands, and the groups most at risk, including the elderly and people with health conditions—and once again put his trust in the British people to act responsibly? After all, believing that individuals make better decisions for themselves, their families and their communities than the state can make for them is surely at the heart of what it means to be a Conservative.

Boris Johnson: My hon. Friend is exactly right, and the best decision that individuals can make for themselves, their families and their communities is to follow the guidance: wash your hands; face; space; and protect the NHS and save lives.

Liz Saville-Roberts: People from Conwy, which has 122 cases per 100,000 people, are not permitted by Welsh law to make non-essential journeys into Meirionnydd next door, where cases stand at 18 per 100,000. But people from Liverpool, with almost 1,600 cases per 100,000, can still go on holiday in Gwynedd and Ynys Môn. People in Wales are asking the Prime Minister: how is that fair?

Boris Johnson: The guidance is very clear that people from areas with very high levels, such as Merseyside, should not be making those journeys.

Bernard Jenkin: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, although the case rate remains relatively low in Essex, the number of cases is doubling every 10 days? Is it not better to bring in decisive measures that will suppress the curve before it climbs, rather than wait until after, provided those measures are effective and there is economic support, particularly for the hospitality sector?

Boris Johnson: My hon. Friend is completely right, and that is why we are bringing in this package.

Caroline Lucas: Today, we seem to have a partial admission of the failure of the Government’s outsourced test and trace system. When so many of us have argued for so long that it should be in the hands of local public health teams, does the Prime Minister regret handing billions over to the private sector, which has failed so spectacularly? Will he now give this system back to local public health teams, who know their communities best, so that they can be responsible for test and trace in all areas, not just those with high numbers? Finally, will he stop saying that he has put his arms around the self-employed, when more than 3 million of them have had no support since March?

Boris Johnson: I repeat the point that I have made about the self-employed: £13.5 billion has been given to support them, and where there is more we can do, we will obviously look at it. The hon. Lady makes an interesting point about whether a local approach would have been better throughout this than a national approach. All the evidence is that we need both. That is what we have supplied, and that is what we will continue to supply. That is why we are expanding our support for the local approach. The experience of other countries shows that we need a national approach, because otherwise the local test and trace operations simply do not join up. Plenty of countries have had that experience, and that is why we are taking an approach that joins up local test and trace with national test and trace.

Desmond Swayne: What does the Prime Minister make of the special envoy’s statement that
“We in the World Health Organisation do not advocate lockdowns as the primary means of control of this virus”?

Boris Johnson: I totally agree with what David Nabarro had to say—I think he is completely right. I think that the best way to control this virus is common-sensical restrictions on person-to-person contact, because it is that person-to-person contact that spreads the virus. That is what we all need to do.

Stephen Farry: Northern Ireland is suffering from some of the worst covid figures in the UK. Can the Prime Minister follow through on his commitment to give the Northern Ireland Executive the financial firepower to follow the science, do what is necessary to address a deteriorating situation and give businesses the support they need?

Boris Johnson: Of course. Businesses in Northern Ireland will receive exactly the same support on the basis of Barnett consequentials; that is inevitable.

Jane Stevenson: I welcome the Prime Minister’s commitment to work at a local level, but I hope he will understand my disappointment that Wolverhampton has been lumped into a tier 2 system, despite the protestations of all three MPs and the local council. My fantastic pubs and restaurants have done everything asked of them, and now, because they are in tier 2, they face no financial support at all and a devastating effect on their viability. Will he urgently look at that?

Boris Johnson: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, but actually, the job support scheme is precisely available to pubs, restaurants and businesses in her constituency that may be open but are not able to trade as they normally would.

George Howarth: The Prime Minister is aware that, if we are to tackle these horrendous rises in covid-19 in the Liverpool City Region, we need a much more effective track, trace and isolate system, but we do not have one yet. Will he accept my suggestion that we establish a Liverpool City Region test, trace and isolate taskforce, including the NHS, local authorities, the Metro Mayor and other stakeholders, to report by the end of this week with suggestions on how the unused  NHS capacity that exists could be used more effectively, so that we have a proper test, trace and isolate system in place?

Boris Johnson: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his suggestion. I can tell him that we are already working with the Liverpool City Region on improving local test and trace. His suggestion is very apposite and one, I am sure, that will be taken forward in the course of those conversations.

Sarah Dines: We are seeing a very unwelcome trend from the Labour party, which backs the Government’s sensible measures one week, only to flip flop and change its mind the next week. Does my right hon. Friend agree with me and several constituents from Derbyshire Dales who say that what they want to see is this House working together on sensible policies rather than political point scoring?

Boris Johnson: Yes, indeed. What the people of this country want to see is unanimous support for measures that restrict the spread of the virus. We have had that before, and I hope that we will have it again. I also hope that Opposition Members who are calling on me to do more in Greater Manchester will prevail on the authorities there to come into tier 3 and to help us to get there.

Gareth Thomas: Tragically, one of the few certainties about this second wave is that economic hardship will rise, so why will the Prime Minister not review the level of statutory sick pay, which even the Health Secretary said that he could not afford to live on, or, crucially, extend the holiday hunger food voucher programme to cover half-term and the Christmas holidays?

Boris Johnson: As the hon. Gentleman knows, we have given substantial sums—£380 million already—to provide meals for kids in need of free school meals in these difficult times, and we will continue, through universal credit and other support, to help families across this country throughout this crisis.

Andrew Mitchell: I warmly welcome my right hon. Friend’s collaborative approach with local government and with the mayors, but will he bear in mind that we have unity among the politicians and the public health experts across the west midlands under our skilful and much-respected Mayor Andy Street in support of the current levels of restrictions, because they do appear to be working? The medical evidence and political consensus suggest leaving the west midlands at level 1 with the additional local restrictions.

Boris Johnson: Alas, the virus’s continued rise across the country is not uniform, but the judgments that we have made are ones that we are sticking to.

Derek Twigg: For the record, Mr Speaker, as you are aware, Halton, although a member of the Liverpool City Region Combined Authority, is actually in Cheshire. The Prime Minister or his Ministers announced new restrictions on 14, 22 and 24 September and as recently as 3 October national or local restrictions,  which impacted on my constituency. Is this not an example of how the Government are shifting from one restriction to the next without any real proper plan? My constituency of Halton has a lower rate of infection than a number of other areas that are not in the highest restriction rate. May I ask the Prime Minister why Halton is in that highest restriction rate when others are not?

Boris Johnson: This Government are of course obliged to adapt their plans to combat the virus, as the epidemic changes shape and changes course. Our objective remains unchanged, which is to get the R rate down in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency and elsewhere, while keeping education open and keeping our economy going. That is something on which both sides of this House are united.

Graham Brady: The Prime Minister has said there will be a four-week sunset for areas with the highest restrictions. What reassurance can he give to areas in tiers 1 and 2, some of which have had additional restrictions already for two and a half months, that this will not become a permanent state?

Boris Johnson: We keep all these things under constant review, and nothing could be more attractive to the Government than moving the whole country out of the present restrictions that we are in as fast as possible. That requires us all to follow the guidance.

Drew Hendry: The Prime Minister just said that he wants to put his arms around every worker in the country, but that will sound pretty hollow to those people left alone and abandoned, who have been excluded from any covid support from this Government. They now face a £20-a-week reduction in their universal credit, so will he answer the question that I am asked by my increasingly desperate constituents every day? How are they to pay their bills?

Boris Johnson: Don’t forget that this Government have increased universal credit by about £7 billion, perhaps £9 billion—£1,000 a year—and the uplift will remain in place for this financial year, as I told the House earlier.

Steven Baker: By when does my right hon. Friend expect to have vaccinated the vulnerable population? What is his confidence in that date, and why does he have that confidence?

Boris Johnson: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. Alas, I cannot give him a date by which I can promise confidently that we will have a vaccine. There are some very hopeful signs, not least from the Oxford-AstraZeneca trials that are being conducted, but, as he knows, SARS took place 18 years ago and we still do not have a vaccine for SARS. I do not wish to depress him, but we must be realistic about this. There is a good chance of a vaccine, but it cannot be taken for granted.

Dawn Butler: Instead of supporting the established system in public health, the Prime Minister has invested £10 billion in privatised companies. It has not controlled the virus, it has not saved lives and it has not rebuilt the economy. In Brent, the wonderful CEO,  Carolyn Downs, with the leader of the council, Mo Butt, had control of local testing. We were able to test people very quickly, and in surrounding areas. The Government have taken the majority of the testing away. People are told they have to travel miles to get tested and, in addition, care workers have waited seven days to get their test results. When will the Prime Minister stop his obsession with this centralised approach and go for a decentralised approach that works?

Boris Johnson: I understand the point that the hon. Lady makes, and obviously, again, I am sorry for the bad experiences that some people have had with the excessive turnaround times for NHS Test and Trace and so on, but I do think that the mixed approach that we are taking is the right one. We need a joined-up, national Test and Trace system combined with the work of local authorities, and that is what we are delivering.

Dehenna Davison: I thank the Prime Minister for his statement and for the tireless work that he is putting in to tackle this wretched virus. A number of constituents running hospitality businesses have contacted me, such as Cheryl, who runs the Station Hotel in Bishop Auckland. She is particularly concerned about the lack of households being able to meet within her pub. Can the Prime Minister reassure Cheryl that we will look at lifting those local restrictions as soon as feasibly possible, and that we will also look at taking every step possible to provide additional financial support for those in tier 2 lockdowns?

Boris Johnson: Of course, and in addition to providing support for hospitality—pubs—in Bishop Auckland through the JSS that I mentioned already, there is the business rate cut that my hon. Friend is familiar with and the grants that I have announced today. But the best thing, as she rightly says, is to get the virus under control so that we can lift these restrictions altogether. That is what we want to do.

Hilary Benn: We all know that rising infections will mean more restrictions, but worried staff in viable businesses in Leeds want to know that they will be looked after if they are forced to close in future. I presume that the Prime Minister can give the House an assurance that the council would be consulted before that happened, but for someone on the minimum wage who would lose a third of their income in those circumstances—by the way, the French and German schemes are more generous than those applying here—can the Prime Minister assure my constituents that they will not, under any circumstances, be evicted from their homes because they could not afford to pay the rent?

Boris Johnson: I must respectfully take issue with the right hon. Gentleman’s characterisation of the scheme, which remains internationally competitive. In France, it is 60% for some, 70% for others. In Germany, it is about the same. In Italy, they have an 80% provision, but there is a serious cap—a very low cap—-in Ireland; it is down at 60%. This is a highly competitive scheme, and it is one that I think is generous by international comparisons. On his point about evictions, nobody wants to see anybody evicted because of the hardship they have suffered because of coronavirus, and that is  why we have extended the period in which landlords are prevented from conducting such evictions by a further six months.

Mike Wood: Families across the country, in whichever of the new tiers, rely on childcare, whether formal or informal. Without it, key workers and those in the wider economy would be unable to work and many children would be unable to get to and from school. Will my right hon. Friend make sure that access to childcare, whether it is professional childcare or relatives and neighbours, remains available throughout this pandemic?

Boris Johnson: Yes, of course. My hon. Friend is totally right about the importance of childcare. We remain committed to giving 30 hours of free childcare. The crucial thing about our measures is to keep the economy moving as much as possible.

Ben Bradshaw: In university cities like Exeter that have a covid spike in student accommodation but not yet significant community spread, but that nevertheless inflate local figures, what is the Prime Minister’s strategy for containing those spikes in student accommodation and preventing the need for lockdowns affecting the rest of the community?

Boris Johnson: The differentiation that is often made between students and other members of the public is sometimes overdone. Students are playing a heroic role in containing the virus where they can in following the guidance and not spreading it back into their families and their home towns. I thank them very much for what they are doing and hope they continue in that way, in Exeter and elsewhere.

Caroline Ansell: I welcome my right hon. Friend’s decision to reject the twin dire choices of a second national lockdown or letting the virus rip, and to take up the far more challenging and complicated path of localising our actions in particular areas. My constituency is low-incidence for the virus but the hospitality sector is hard hit, and Christmas is now in the frame. What moves might there be, going forward, to hyper-localise actions, and what support will there be for my constituents’ jobs and businesses?

Boris Johnson: My hon. Friend is absolutely right that it would be a wonderful thing if we could hyper- localise actions in the way that she suggests. Alas, the disease being what it is, we cannot reduce to too small a size the areas in which we place restrictions. The best thing that her constituents can do, and the best thing the whole country can do, to get through this as fast as possible is to follow the package of measures that we have set out. As I have said to Opposition Members, the best thing would be if cities and regions across the country came together and delivered the package that we have set out.

Liz Twist: Last week I asked the Secretary of State for Health whether he would fund local authorities in the north-east that have put forward a proposal for local test and trace services. He said in response:
“We put an extra £10 million into the local authorities in the north-east to support contact tracing”.—[Official Report, 5 October 2020; Vol. 681, c. 634.]
Today I am told in a telephone briefing that there is no money available. Which is it, Prime Minister? Can we fund the local authorities in the north-east to provide that effective test and tracing?

Boris Johnson: I think the hon. Lady may have missed what I said. We are putting up to another £1 billion into supporting local authorities and £500 million into supporting local test and trace and enforcement.

Jerome Mayhew: While rightly moving to simplify the message, does my right hon. Friend agree that flexible local approaches are the best way to tackle outbreaks in order to prevent a total lockdown and minimise the wider economic impact, particularly on low-incidence-level areas such as Broadland?

Boris Johnson: That is exactly right. That is the strategy that we have been pursuing for some time now, and that is why it is necessary to intensify the restrictions in some areas.

Mohammad Yasin: The Prime Minister keeps telling us that test and trace provision is being increased, yet the covid-19 testing facility at Bedford’s Borough Hall has just reduced its service provision from seven to four days a week at a time when the infection rates are rising. So I have a simple question, Prime Minister: why?

Boris Johnson: I would be happy to write to the hon. Gentleman about the test centre that he mentions. As I have said, we are increasing test and trace capacity and the number of tests conducted the whole time. As I said, I will be happy to write to him about the particular case he mentions, but it is still the case that this country continues to test more people and conduct more tests than any other country in Europe.

Edward Timpson: The decision to place Cheshire in tier 2, and the additional restrictions that that will entail, will inevitably impact on families and businesses across Eddisbury, not least the already decimated wedding industry and its existing supply chain. Will my right hon. Friend look again at what further targeted support can be made available for that industry, which will struggle to remain viable through another six months of effectively being closed?

Boris Johnson: I have real sympathy for those in the wedding industry who have been affected. It is a great industry, and times are very tough for them. That is why we are putting in the jobs support scheme and extra grants for businesses. The best way forward is for us to get the virus down and get the spread down, so that we can reopen those types of businesses as fast as possible.

Gavin Newlands: Many of my constituents support covid-19 public health measures, but they feel that, despite their rhetoric, the Government have not reciprocated. It is not only those 3 million who are excluded from support, there are also those on universal credit who will lose the £20 weekly top-up, those on legacy benefits who receive nothing, or those who missed out on furlough because their payroll was run one day after an arbitrary and  retrospective date. The Prime Minister has boasted about putting his arms around people, but is it not time to show people that he has a heart?

Boris Johnson: I must repeat what I said earlier: by other global standards this Government have done a huge amount—£190 billion already—to support people, businesses, jobs, and livelihoods across the country. On the specific point about universal credit, we have increased its value by £1,000, and that will remain in place for the rest of this financial year.

Selaine Saxby: Will my right hon. Friend join me in thanking Devon County Council and Public Health Devon for their response to the virus so far, where swathes of local actions are in place to contain local outbreaks? Does he agree that it is vital for national and local government work together to tackle differences in the regional prevalence of this virus?

Boris Johnson: Yes. I thank my hon. Friend, and everybody in Devon, and the local authorities, for their efforts to keep the virus down. This is a giant collective effort, and alas, even in the south-west we are seeing the virus going up, although by nothing like as much as in other parts of the country. It is going up across the whole country, and we must work together to get it down.

Kevan Jones: The Prime Minister says that he is listening and working with local authorities, but that simply is not true. Since the beginning of the crisis, local authorities and directors of public health have argued for a locally based test and trace system. When will he admit that his national approach and national system has failed? Will he hand over to local authorities and directors of public health the responsibility and resources to ensure an effective local test and trace system? That is the only way we will get on top of this crisis.

Boris Johnson: I think I have answered that point about four times already. We need a combination of both national and local.

Miriam Cates: Parents in my constituency rely on friends and family for informal childcare, and even under the new three-tier restrictions I believe that informal, pre-arranged childcare can continue. As a new parent himself, I am sure my right hon. Friend understands that sometimes circumstances dictate that parents need emergency childcare. That is happening more and more with childminders or nursery staff having to isolate. Will the Prime Minister confirm that emergency informal childcare can still be used to assist parents, even under the three-tier system?

Boris Johnson: Tell me about it, Mr Speaker! My hon. Friend makes an important point, and there are obviously provisions for 30 hours of free childcare. Her point about emergency childcare is well made. That is why we need to keep the economy moving in the way that we are.

Neil Coyle: The chief execs of 17,000 hospitality businesses—representing half a million jobs and millions of customers every week, including many in my central London Southwark constituency—say that not one of them has  seen a super-spreader incident and none has had direct contact from the tracing system. Testing and tracing is not working, so why will the Prime Minister not get a grip and fix those systems, instead of floundering, trying to find someone else to blame, and putting more lives and more jobs at risk?

Boris Johnson: That is why we are investing massively in NHS Test and Trace, and in a co-ordinated local effort. As I have said before, we are now testing more people than any other country in Europe, and we have contacted hundreds of thousands of people across the country and persuaded them to slow the spread of the virus. Rather than continually knocking NHS Test and Trace, let us work together to support it and build public confidence.

Virginia Crosbie: The Prime Minister and the Government have been faced with a crisis the like of which we have not seen since world war two. Despite everything, they have kept our NHS safe and casualties to a minimum, and the economy continues to function. Will the Prime Minister commit 100% to my constituents on Ynys Môn to do everything he can to prevent a second UK-wide lockdown, and join me in thanking them for their incredible effort in keeping our island's infection rates down?

Boris Johnson: I thoroughly congratulate the people of Ynys Môn on what they are doing and on keeping infection rates down. I hope that they will continue to work with the rest of the country to follow the guidance and save lives.

Catherine McKinnell: Thousands of women are carrying the anxiety not only of bringing new life into this world in the middle of a pandemic, but of potentially having to go into labour alone. Despite changes to the Government’s guidelines, too few hospitals are allowing women to take a birth partner into hospital with them. As somebody who experienced very painful and long labours, I cannot bear the idea of a woman facing that alone. In order that we do not look back in shame on how we treated pregnant women and new mothers during this period, will the Prime Minister do what he can to make sure that hospitals do their bit to ensure that women do not face labour alone?

Boris Johnson: I wholly share the hon. Lady’s feelings about the vital importance of allowing women to have a birth partner with them during labour. As she rightly says, we have changed the guidelines to make that possible, but if she has particular cases in mind where this is not happening, I would be grateful if she would write to me with the details.

Anthony Browne: The Government have quite rightly focused on protecting the NHS, but we also need to keep the NHS serving patients in South Cambridgeshire, which, like other parts of the country, has relatively low levels of covid, but plenty of people with other medical conditions that need planned and emergency care. As the second wave strikes, can the Prime Minister tell me what steps the Government are taking to ensure that all patients, whatever their condition, can carry on getting the treatment that they need?

Boris Johnson: My hon. Friend is spot on. It is so important to avoid an uncontained second wave in order to protect the NHS, and allow the treatments and therapies for other non-covid afflictions to continue.

Yvette Cooper: Just a month ago, the Prime Minister described his moonshot plan, under which millions of tests would be done and returned every day. He said,
“if everything comes together, it may be possible even for challenging sectors like theatres to have life much closer to normal before Christmas.”
Families are now feeling that a normal Christmas is further away than ever, and local health officials in our area have said that people are waiting for six days, not a day, to get their test results. If we could come back from the moon and get back to what is happening on planet Earth, when will he have enough testing capacity in place so that my constituents can get their results in 24 hours?

Boris Johnson: The daily test process has gone up by 34% just in the last month, and daily capacity has gone up by 28%. As the right hon. Lady knows, by the end of this month, NHS Test and Trace is confident that it will be doing 500,000 tests—it will have capacity, I should say, for 500,000 tests a day.

Harriett Baldwin: No one envies the Prime Minister having to make these incredibly difficult decisions. Last week’s Office for National Statistics community survey showed that by far and away the biggest age group catching the virus is the student age group. Since age is a much bigger predictor of risk than geography, are the Prime Minister’s advisers considering making recommendations about how individuals can control their own risk by age?

Boris Johnson: One of the issues that we have—I tried to address this point earlier—particularly with the large numbers of multi-generational households such as we have in this country, is that it is very difficult to confine the virus to one age group and one generation. Alas, one of the reasons we are so concerned is that it is starting to spread quite substantially among the over-60s, as we are seeing now in the Merseyside region.

Vicky Foxcroft: Prime Minister, disabled people have felt like an afterthought throughout this pandemic. I would like to ask one simple question that requires only a yes or no answer. Will there be a sign language interpreter at your press conference this evening?

Boris Johnson: I doubt we will get one in time, but the point is registered.

Kevin Hollinrake: From what the Prime Minister said, I have worked out that the entirety of Thirsk and Malton is in the lowest tier of risk, and I am very keen to keep it there. Now that we have data that is super-local data, can we have restrictions that are super-local? Rather than looking at things on the county-wide level of North Yorkshire, where we have varying levels of incidence, can we look at them at a district council level, as Hambleton and Ryedale, which have very low levels of transmission?

Boris Johnson: I hear my hon. Friend, and I understand the point that he makes. Alas, as I said earlier, micro control of this virus is very difficult without restricting people’s freedom of movement in such a way as to be very difficult for people in Yorkshire.

Andrew Bowie: It was very welcome to hear the First Minister of Scotland confirm earlier that the three-tier system being unveiled in Scotland in a few weeks will closely align with the one for the rest of the United Kingdom, as consistency of messaging is key to saving lives. With that in mind, will the Prime Minister confirm that a four nation, whole-UK approach remains at the heart of what the Government are trying to achieve in combating coronavirus?

Boris Johnson: Yes, and I thank my hon. Friend for what he does to make sure that happens. The ways that we co-operate are much more significant than the differences between us.

Geraint Davies: Will the Prime Minister confirm that people who can work from home should do so? Therefore, will he reinstate digital democracy in this Parliament, which allowed MPs to participate in debates and ask questions while self-isolating or shielding so that they do not risk infecting other people as they travel to work, infecting others at work or being infected themselves?

Boris Johnson: On this matter, Mr Speaker, I defer to you and the House authorities.

Lee Anderson: My constituents in Ashfield have worked incredibly hard to obey all the rules and guidelines to keep covid at bay. I am therefore deeply disappointed that we have found ourselves in the same lockdown situation as Nottingham, where rates are eight times higher. We are not in tier 3, as I first feared, but that is not a fair reward for my constituents. Can my right hon. Friend please assure me that our rates will be reviewed on a weekly basis, and that when they come down we will be taken out of tier 2?

Boris Johnson: I thank my hon. Friend for representing his constituents well in the way he does. Of course, we will make sure that we regularly review the measures for his constituency, and indeed for every constituency in this country.

Clive Efford: The only think that is world beating about the Prime Minister’s track and trace system is its capacity to take taxpayers’ money and put it in the hands of friends of the Tory party, and deliver a chaotic system. That contrasts with the performance of local government, which has performed miracles at a local level while being starved of resources by the Government, who promised money and then reneged on that promise. Will the Prime Minister now provide the resources to local government if he is going to give it extra responsibility in delivering track and trace?

Boris Johnson: I note the ideological scorn of any private sector work, which I thought I had left the Labour party these days, but does not seem to have done. I share the hon. Gentleman’s veneration of local authorities, as a creature of local government myself,  and that is why we have given an extra £3.7 billion to support local authorities in this crisis. As I told the House just now, there is a billion more to come.

Gareth Davies: Lincolnshire is a vast rural county with many large towns. Can the Prime Minister assure me that any future restrictions and measures imposed on my county will be as targeted as possible and be made together with Lincolnshire County Council leadership?

Boris Johnson: It is the burden of what I am saying today that we want to do everything in co-operation with local leaders and local authorities.

Jessica Morden: Football clubs such as Newport County AFC have, like many industries, been hard hit by the pandemic. They need to see the Premier League stick to its obligations to provide assistance to lower division clubs. Will the Prime Minister ensure that happens?

Boris Johnson: Yes, indeed I will.

Richard Holden: I thank the Prime Minister and the Chancellor for the £200 billion they have already put in, which has supported employers and employees in my constituency, but North West Durham constituents in events and hospitality are under severe pressure at the moment, with restrictions already hammering their bottom line. In County Durham, what support is available for businesses? Does the Prime Minister know when the negotiations on whether we will be in tier 3 or tier 3 will be determined with local authorities?

Boris Johnson: For the implications for his constituency, my hon. Friend should look at the gov.uk website. He should be in no doubt that the Government are committed to supporting businesses, jobs and livelihoods across the country. That is why my right hon Friend the Chancellor unveiled the job support scheme, and it is why we have uprated universal credit and put in many other measures, including cuts in VAT and business rates, that will continue for a long time to come.

Sammy Wilson: The Prime Minister has the difficult task of leading the country through this health crisis, and it should not be used to score political points in the way that it has been by some today. However, does he recognise the real concern that there is, even among many supporters of his party, at the impact of the policies that have been followed? There is also questioning of the effectiveness of those policies, because we are back today where we were in March of this year. What assessment has he made of the impact of the policies announced today, in terms of the forced closure of businesses, whether that is on jobs, bankruptcies, long-term health or increased levels of poverty?

Boris Johnson: With respect to the right hon. Gentleman, we are not back to where we were in March, because the R is not at those levels and we are not going back to a national lockdown of the kind we saw in March. What we are doing is taking a series of carefully  modulated local and national measures designed together to get the R down, keep education going and keep the economy moving.

Saqib Bhatti: My constituents in Meriden have worked really hard to comply with the guidelines, and I am sure they will adapt to the new tier system to protect the NHS and keep the rate of infection low. Because they have worked so hard, will the Prime Minister commit to working to review things and get them out of tier 2 as soon as possible? They have been doing their part, and they deserve it.

Boris Johnson: Yes. I am aware of the feelings in the midlands and, indeed, around the country. I can tell the people of Meriden that we want to get them out of any kind of restrictions as fast as we possibly can.

Christine Jardine: Prime Minister, we are all disappointed and distressed that we are back where we were in March in many ways. The Prime Minister says that he wants to keep the economy going, but for many businesses and individuals, particularly the clinically vulnerable, that will be impossible. Will the Prime Minister and Chancellor end this chop and change, knee-jerk reaction approach that we have seen in recent days and extend the job retention scheme and furlough until next June so that businesses and individuals can have certainty and clarity about the support they will get, which will enable them to plan their way through this crisis?

Boris Johnson: I understand the point that the hon. Lady makes, but she will also understand that the schemes that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor has announced go on until next spring. We should not forget that the original furlough scheme has yet to elapse.

Andrew Jones: The Nightingale hospital in Harrogate has been stood up ready for full-staff readiness. That 500-bed hospital was built in 18 days by 600 people—staff from the NHS, our armed services, Harrogate Borough Council and colleagues from the private sector. It was an example of local and national working together. Does the Prime Minister agree with me that that combination of local and national, public and private is the way to bring all the resources we can to tackle this pandemic?

Boris Johnson: Yes, indeed. I can assure the people of Harrogate and elsewhere that we are stepping up preparations across the country, but the Nightingales, as I think Stephen Powis of the NHS has confirmed, are being stood up in the north of the country as well.

Toby Perkins: The Prime Minister will be as aware as anyone that people do not generally go to the pub to meet their own wife; they go to the pub to be with other people. In the current programme that the Prime Minister has put together, there is no support for those pubs, so he is saying that he will cover and support pubs that are forced to close, but many of those pubs will find their business model and their businesses untenable. Will the Prime Minister do more to support those pubs that might be open but, frankly, are not able to make a living?

Boris Johnson: That is exactly why, on top of the low business rates, the VAT cuts and so on—and the grants that we have given—the job support scheme is directly designed to support those businesses that will remain open, like pubs, but which are not able to trade as they normally would under some of these restrictions. That is what it is there for.

Felicity Buchan: Businesses in my central London constituency are hurting because of the low footfall. While of course we need to take appropriate measures to control the virus, does my right hon. Friend agree with me that we need to balance the interests of the economy, because it is only with a functioning economy that we can pay for our excellent NHS?

Boris Johnson: My hon. Friend is completely right, and that is why I made the point, in almost identical terms, earlier on.

Lucy Powell: Can I thank the Prime Minister for listening to calls from Members from across Greater Manchester on both sides of the House to work with us locally to tackle the virus while remaining in tier 2, which I think he has announced today? But does he agree with me that it is vital we take the public with us, and that means credibility that the tough measures he is outlining really do follow the evidence of where transmission is occurring? He has yet to provide evidence that closing pubs and restaurants would make a material difference in transmission, but action on households would, so will he today recommit to working with Greater Manchester leaders on tackling household transmission—proposals put forward to his office last night?

Boris Johnson: The deputy chief medical officer, Jonathan Van-Tam, addressed that point directly earlier on today about transmission in hospitality settings. Clearly, we need to reduce the overall budget of transmission that is going on in the country, and that is one sector that we can address. I am interested in what she says about Greater Manchester; my information is slightly different. What I would hope is that we can work together to bring down the rates in Greater Manchester, which at present are certainly worrying.

Rob Butler: Many businesses in Aylesbury are affected by the 10 pm curfew, despite the low infection rates locally, so can my right hon. Friend confirm that there is and there always will be a scientific basis for restrictions on economic activity?

Boris Johnson: Yes, I can.

Ian Mearns: Would the Prime Minister confirm that the north-east is at tier 2? Can I recommend to the Prime Minister a document published this weekend by the Association of Directors of Public Health called “Protecting our communities”? This document suggests a comprehensive national strategy that embraces locally led responses. However, for these local interventions to work, directors of public health in local authorities in the north-east need the much heralded, but as yet not forthcoming, resources, so that with their local leadership working together with the communities they serve, we might have a real chance to turn back the tide of this virus. But we need the money—real money, not promissory notes from the bank of empty rhetoric.

Boris Johnson: I do not know whether £190 billion counts as a promissory note or empty rhetoric, but that is what the Chancellor has provided so far in support. I am grateful for what the hon. Gentleman says about local responses. That is entirely right, and we are certainly looking for locally led responses to help us to get the virus down.

Jane Hunt: Could the Prime Minister say how we can use the three-tier system to enable all types of businesses to use a risk assessment base to their operation to help them remain open and fully working in all but the very high-tier instances?

Boris Johnson: All businesses that are covid-secure should be able to keep going, and I hope that they will.

Stuart McDonald: Will the Prime Minister look at the case of a young constituent of mine who has gone from a successful career in banking to facing the real prospect of bankruptcy, all because he set up his own business on the wrong side of the completely unnecessary cut-off date for self-employed support? He has used up his savings; he cannot pay the bills. Will the Prime Minister act to close this significant gap in support for the newly self-employed?

Boris Johnson: We have to have some sort of cut-off date in order to deal with the possibility of fraud. I am obviously very sympathetic to the hon. Gentleman’s constituent and I wish him all the best. In the meantime, there is the support available under universal credit, but the best thing for him and for the whole economy is to keep things moving and to hope that he gets the kind of job that he wants as fast as possible.

Rob Roberts: In Delyn, which would likely fall into tier 2 on the new scale, we have draconian travel bans imposed by the Welsh Government, which mean that people can go shopping 20 miles in one direction but cannot go half a mile in the other to visit family. That movement restriction makes a massive difference to business success, but Treasury support will not apply because businesses are not being mandated to close. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the virus does not respect county boundaries and join me and my north Wales colleagues in calling on the Labour Government in Wales to publish their information and justify their decisions, as he does on a regular basis?

Boris Johnson: I certainly echo what my hon. Friend says about the Government in Wales. Businesses of the kind that he refers to in his constituency obviously have access to the job support system when they are forced to trade in a way that is not normal for them.

Kerry McCarthy: When my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North (Catherine McKinnell) asked the Prime Minister about partners attending labour, he said that if she had any problematic examples, she should bring them to his attention. I have a constituent who so far in her pregnancy has lost two of her three triplets, one at eight weeks and one at 20 weeks. She was then told that she could not bring her partner with her to the 34-week scan. Obviously, scans ought to be good news for parents, but sometimes  they are not. We had an intervention from the Mayor and support from the campaign group Pregnant Then Screwed, and her partner was then allowed to visit, but this is another issue. It is not just about attending labour; the partner ought to be there for scans as well.

Boris Johnson: I am so sorry for the experience of the hon. Lady’s constituent. She makes a very important point about partners being there for scans. I will look into the matter she raises.

Robin Millar: I welcome the Government’s approach to using health, economic and behavioural evidence in reaching their decisions, but a recent poll suggested that only some three quarters of people expected to isolate intended to do so, and that as few as one in five had actually done so. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the key to tackling this pandemic is shared responsibility, not just between national and local government but with every single citizen?

Boris Johnson: Indeed. Everybody who is told to self-isolate because they have been in contact with somebody with an index case of covid should remember that there is £500 to help them but also a £10,000 fine if they fail to do so and therefore risk the virus spreading further.

Kim Johnson: Liverpool will be placed on the highest restrictions from Wednesday, with the closure of pubs, clubs, gyms and other leisure facilities for at least four weeks. Will the Government stand by their commitment to safeguard businesses by properly compensating them and allowing them to survive the latest restrictions imposed on Liverpool city region, and provide us with the necessary financial support to protect jobs and livelihoods?

Boris Johnson: Yes, indeed. That is why my right hon. Friend the Chancellor announced grants of up to £3,000 and why we have the job support system, which is designed to help people in exactly the circumstances the hon. Lady describes.

Mark Pawsey: I welcome the introduction of three tiers, which will give more certainty to everyone, but while hospitality outlets in Rugby have worked hard to make their premises safe and have been supported by police, community wardens, business improvement district rangers and street pastors, the 10 o’clock curfew has led to many leaving the pub to go to a shop to stock up with booze, often with their friends, to drink at home. If it is necessary to keep 10 o’clock closing, should off-licences be treated equally?

Boris Johnson: I understand my hon. Friend’s point about people’s behaviour after leaving the pub. That is why it is vital that everybody shows common sense and follows the guidance.

Lloyd Russell-Moyle: You and I, Mr Speaker, and the Prime Minister could probably live on a one-third pay cut on our pay. Someone on the minimum wage, with a one-third pay cut on their pay, cannot live and pay the bills and will therefore be   disincentivised to follow the rules. Will the Prime Minister look again just at the minimum wage people to ensure that the new scheme has a floor?

Boris Johnson: I understand the hon. Gentleman’s point. That is why we have extended the job support system. The universal credit system is also there to provide a safety net and to help people, precisely because, as their incomes may go down, so universal credit goes up. That is the point of the system.

Laurence Robertson: Every weekend in my constituency, a large car boot sale takes place. I have no objection to that, but next weekend, just a few hundred yards down the road, Cheltenham races will be run without any paying spectators. Surely that is an anomaly. Will the Prime Minister address that by allowing sporting venues to open to welcome paying spectators, as long as they do so in a safe way?

Boris Johnson: We are generally well disposed towards any business or organisation that allows its activities to take place in a covid-secure way. We will proceed with our plans to do that for sporting events as soon as we possibly can. As for the car boot sale in my hon. Friend’s constituency, I urge everybody attending it to observe social distancing and stop the spread of the virus.

Diana R. Johnson: This morning, Professor Van-Tam said that the resurgence in covid-19 cases among young people is being spread to the older generation. We know that the World Health Organisation’s mantra is, “Test, test, test”, but the test, trace and isolate system is not good enough. Does the Prime Minister think that universities such as Hull University in my constituency should set up their own testing facility for all their students, including asymptomatic students, as the University of East Anglia and Cambridge University are now doing?

Boris Johnson: I believe the hon. Lady has mentioned the issue of Hull University’s testing facilities before—perhaps it was another hon. Member—but I will certainly find out what the obstacle is to Hull’s testing facilities. There is no reason in principle why that university should not be testing in the way that the other universities she mentioned are doing.

Tobias Ellwood: I repeat Bournemouth University’s offer to establish a testing lab on its campus to help the local community. I welcome today’s statement, but the Prime Minister is well aware of the importance of the hospitality industry to Bournemouth’s economy. I would be very grateful if he reviewed the 10 pm curfew as urgently as possible.

Boris Johnson: I understand my right hon. Friend’s point and I have every sympathy with Bournemouth’s hospitality industry, which I have enjoyed many times in the past, as I am sure we all have. Alas, we have to make restrictions in the overall volume of transmission that is taking place in our society. That is an obvious place to make a difference, and that is what we are doing.

Lindsay Hoyle: Welcome back, Jim Shannon.

Jim Shannon: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I am glad to be back. My wife and I are still speaking after two weeks. If there had been a third week, there would have been a problem, but we are still together.
Could the Prime Minister provide an outline of his discussions with the First Minister, with special reference to the proposed circuit breakers that some chief medical officers are calling for, acknowledging that they would be successful only if they were UK-wide and centrally funded, as there is simply no funding available at present to allow businesses to continue to operate if they are forced to close yet again? This is particularly relevant to areas such as mine in Strangford, which has the second-lowest number of cases in the whole of Northern Ireland.

Boris Johnson: One of the problems is that places like Strabane in Northern Ireland have about 820 cases per 100,000, which is about the highest in the UK, perhaps in the whole of Europe. That is why we have to take the actions we are taking. I hear what the hon. Gentleman says about the circuit breaker. We want to give these measures time to work, if we possibly can.

Flick Drummond: May I thank the Prime Minister for his welcome statement? I have been visiting pubs and event businesses in Meon Valley, where the covid transmission rate is below the national average. What reassurance can he give to businesses, which are looking to plan ahead, that restrictions will be lifted flexibly where transmissions revert to a low level?

Boris Johnson: I can give my hon. Friend every possible assurance that as soon as transmission is obviously down—as soon as we have got the R down below 1— things will change very much indeed.

Andy Carter: I thank the Prime Minister and his team for engaging across the weekend, and for the decision to place Warrington into tier 2, rather than including it in the wider Merseyside region. One of the many questions I am asked by businesses, particularly in the hospitality sector, is: what are the criteria for moving Warrington back into tier 1 and reducing the level of restrictions locally?

Boris Johnson: That is a very good question. A lot of people ask about the precise criteria. We look at a number of different measures. We look at the hospital admissions and the rate of transmissions in the community. A number of things are taken into account, but one thing that was clearly and particularly influential in the decision on Merseyside was the transmission, as has just been mentioned, into the over-60s group, which is obviously very concerning. As I just said to my hon. Friend the Member for Meon Valley (Mrs Drummond), when the R comes down, that changes it.

Barbara Keeley: Under the initial furlough scheme, staff had 80% of their salary paid if there was no work for them, but the Chancellor’s new scheme pays only two thirds of wages, which for minimum wage staff can be as little as £5.80 an hour. And only those businesses forced to close will get support, even though supply chain businesses will also be hit. If we are going to beat this virus, we need a full  package of financial support in all tier 2 and tier 3 areas that pays everyone affected 80% of their wages. Can the Prime Minister commit to providing that support?

Boris Johnson: I am proud of this Government’s record in raising the living wage by record sums. The hon. Lady will have heard what I said earlier about continuing with our support for universal credit—continuing with the uplift in universal credit—for the whole of this financial year.

Dean Russell: While I was volunteering just this morning at Watford General Hospital, where it happens to be Think Clean week, the wonderful specialist infection prevention and control support worker Cheryl Atkins used an ultraviolet system to show me how easily this or any virus can spread through poor hand hygiene. Does the Prime Minister agree that it is incumbent on us all to fight covid by washing our hands regularly and by following the incredibly simple yet tremendously powerful guidance of “Hands, face, space”?

Boris Johnson: I agree totally with my hon. Friend, and it should be Think Clean week in Watford and across the whole of the UK.

Paula Barker: Today the Government have placed Merseyside into tier 3 lockdown. For 10 long years, my city has been under the boot of Tory austerity, and now the Prime Minister intends to shut down our economy while keeping furlough support at 67%, which has all the hallmarks of once again placing our city into a state of managed decline. Will he listen to our metro Mayor, our city Mayor and local MPs and stump up the cash for a furlough scheme based on 80% of wages, without the reliance, as he keeps saying, on universal credit? If it was the right thing to do in March, it is the right thing to do now.

Boris Johnson: I am grateful to Steve Rotheram and other leaders in that area for the support they are giving for the measures we are putting in place. I think that they understand the real dilemma that we face, which is that we must get the virus down but we must also keep the economy going and support jobs. That is what we are doing.

Ben Bradley: It is really frustrating that Mansfield is heading into new restrictions when our rate of transmission is 10% of that of Nottingham city—despite being further away from it than Derby, for example, which is not being similarly restricted. I understand the need to get ahead of the virus, but I argued strongly against these arbitrary-seeming boundaries. Can my right hon. Friend assure me that this will be regularly and properly reviewed, and that Mansfield will not be automatically tied to the city’s fate when it comes to removing these restrictions in the future?

Boris Johnson: I understand completely the frustrations of the people of Mansfield. I am afraid that further restrictions are necessary across the country in the way that we have outlined today, but of course they will be reviewed very regularly.

Mike Amesbury: The Halton part of my constituency in Merseyside has been placed in tier 3. The Cheshire West and Chester part is in tier 2. In the Cheshire West and Chester part, we have the  nonsense of the 10 pm curfew, which does not follow the evidence and needs to be reviewed and changed. In the Halton part, we have people who are now required to live on 67% of the minimum wage, which is nowhere near sufficient. Look at this again, Prime Minister. Step up and look at this again.

Boris Johnson: I am afraid I must reject what the hon. Gentleman says in the sense that I think he is being inconsistent or trying to have it both ways. Most people, I think, in this country want to see restrictions that get the virus down, and that is what we are bringing forward and supporting. I think most people in this country also want to see support for people who are put out of business through no fault of their own, and that is what we are also providing.

Elliot Colburn: Carshalton and Wallington residents have worked hard to keep the virus rate down to one of the lowest levels in London; however, with varying degrees of guidance and restrictions across the country, sometimes the guidance can be difficult to follow and people need clarification. Can my right hon. Friend assure me that this new covid three-level alert system will make it easier for people to understand and ultimately follow the guidance?

Boris Johnson: Yes, indeed; that is why we have gone for the three-tier approach and anybody in any doubt whatever, whether or not in Carshalton—I thank my hon. Friend’s constituents for the effort that they have made—should get on to the gov.uk website and see what they need to do to comply.

Rachel Hopkins: Many of my constituents in Luton South work for Luton airport, its supply chain and linked businesses, such as Theobolds Coaches, which I visited last Friday. While businesses in tier 3 that are forced to close will be offered some Government support, what support will be offered to those businesses in tourism and airports that are not in tier 3 but are so distinctly affected by the addition of tier 3, and are struggling due to a lack of consumer confidence?

Boris Johnson: The hon. Lady makes a very important point, but for some of the businesses that she talks about—aviation, for instance—we have packages. Whether through Time to Pay or through the Birch process, we are trying to look after the aviation sector, but for all businesses that are unable to trade as normal the joint support system is there.

James Daly: Pubs, restaurants and cafés in Bury, Ramsbottom and Tottington have invested heavily to create covid-secure environments. That is reflected in the fact that, on the last figures I have, in the last 14 days there were no recorded covid outbreaks in such places and there is no evidence at all of significant transmission of covid in these important community assets. Will the Prime Minister therefore join me in thanking local business owners for their efforts in creating such secure environments, and agree that we should do everything possible to ask local residents, within reason and abiding by Government guidance, to support these important hospitality venues and community assets?

Boris Johnson: Yes, indeed. I thank the people of Bury and I am, of course, sorry for all the privations that are being endured, not just in Bury but across the country. The best way to get the businesses that my hon. Friend talks about back on their feet is for us all, as I say, to follow the guidance, get the R down and take the country forward.

Imran Hussain: I have listened to the Prime Minister this afternoon, but the reality remains that if the Government do not quickly set out much more comprehensive support for places such as Bradford, where local restrictions are having a disastrous impact on our businesses and communities, many jobs will be lost in our local economy, and businesses will go to the wall. Will the Prime Minister guarantee that every area gets the support that it needs, and will he reopen the discretionary grant scheme so that local authorities such as Bradford can respond to the needs of their businesses and communities to protect jobs and livelihoods?

Boris Johnson: I can tell the hon. Gentleman that we are supporting local authorities such as Bradford not just with the £3.6 billion we have already given, but as I said earlier this afternoon with another £1 billion to come.

Michael Fabricant: I thank the Prime Minister for his very clear statement, but compliance will be a major issue even if people understand the rules. Part of the problem is that people think the situation will just go on and on for the next decade. Although I understand the Prime Minister’s reluctance to talk too much about a vaccine—he made that clear in an earlier answer—can he help people in Lichfield and the rest of the country by saying that, with new drugs and new vaccines, once we have got over this winter, that will be it?

Boris Johnson: I have very little doubt that, once we have got through to spring, we will be in a completely different environment. Indeed, I have high hopes that things will change very fast as a result, as my hon. Friend says, of new technologies that are coming on stream. But for the time being we have to concentrate on the tools we have in hand, and those tools are the packages of restrictions that we have set out and the basic guidance about restricting contact person to person and restricting the spread of the virus. That is what we have to do for the time being.

Kenny MacAskill: The reality for many in the hospitality sector is not a close-down for a week or two, but a shutdown for the rest of the winter season. These businesses are vibrant and can provide vital jobs when the spring comes around, as they have done in years past, but only if they can survive this closure. When Germany can furlough through until next year, why won’t the United Kingdom?

Boris Johnson: The Chancellor has set out the job support scheme, which, as he said, goes through till next year.

Andrea Leadsom: I am sure my right hon. Friend would agree that if we are to get broad compliance with these very tough lockdown measures, ordinary, sensible working people need to understand that they are fair and logical. Will my right hon. Friend therefore agree to publish precise details of not just what the rules are but why each one is necessary?

Boris Johnson: Yes, indeed.

Zarah Sultana: Key to stopping the spread of the virus is giving people the financial support they need to self-isolate when they need to, but millions of working people still do not have that. The Government’s test and trace support payment scheme is totally inadequate; only a small proportion of workers qualify, and even for those who do, at £500 for up to two weeks, the scheme pays less than the minimum wage. Will the Prime Minister finally do as I urged him at Prime Minister’s questions back in March and raise statutory sick pay to the level of the real living wage, extend it to cover all workers and give people the financial security they need to self-isolate?

Boris Johnson: I just remind the hon. Lady that, in addition to the £500, there is also the support of universal credit. As to those who are thinking of not isolating still, alas I must tell the House that there is a fine of £10,000.

Laura Trott: I was glad to hear the Prime Minister refer in his opening statement to the need to continue elective operations. My own trust has pledged to continue them through winter for as long as possible. Will the Prime Minister confirm that the decision will continue to be locally led and that he will do all he can to prevent a backlog?

Boris Johnson: Yes, and it is exactly in order to prevent a further backlog that we need to prevent an uncontained outbreak of coronavirus now. That is why we are putting in place the measures we are.

Marie Rimmer: The Prime Minister should have no problem with giving me a positive answer to my question. For lockdown restrictions to work, public support is essential. For people to give up what they enjoy most, they need to understand why. Will the Prime Minister commit to sharing with the public the evidence on why specific types of businesses have been forced to close?

Boris Johnson: I repeat the undertaking that I just gave.

Alicia Kearns: I thank the Prime Minister for his support for my campaign to ensure that all women can have partners with them for all scans and all their labour, but will he confirm whether pregnant women throughout the country who are in their third trimester should be shielding, given their much higher vulnerability to covid, and that employers should recognise that and support them to work from home or in roles that are not on the frontline?

Boris Johnson: Pregnant women who are in any doubt about what they should do to shield from covid should consult the gov.uk website for advice, because there is plenty there for pregnancies.

Maria Eagle: I understand and agree with the need to prevent households from mixing to cut covid rates on Merseyside, but this tough local lockdown is going to destroy many businesses and jobs that will not be eligible for the limited local  furlough so far announced by the Chancellor, because they will not be forced to close by law—they will just lose most of their business. Will the Prime Minister undertake to look again, with his Chancellor, at the business support scheme, with the aim of ensuring that jobs and businesses can survive this tough next six months and will be able to grow bigger again in better times, rather than have to close now, with all the misery, unemployment and bankruptcy that is going to result?

Boris Johnson: Of course, in addition to the billions that we have invested—including £19 billion in coronavirus business interruption loans to small and medium-sized enterprises and £38 billion in bounce back loans, all of which are still available—we are making cash grants of up to £3,000 for businesses, such as those in Merseyside, that have been forced to close as a result of local lockdowns.

Steve Brine: I very much welcome the Prime Minister’s expressing the view that a second national lockdown is not the right course for our country. As well as kicking the can down the road, it would be totally unfair on areas, such as the one that I represent, that for all manner of reasons—and there are many—have a completely different rate. Given the fact that we obviously have a north-south split in our country right now—there is no judgment or blame in that, and there should not be; it is just a stark fact—what is the Prime Minister’s opinion on that and what information has he been given by the experts as to why?

Boris Johnson: The reality is that the disease is rising across the country. We have seen in other European countries and around the world that it sometimes rises fastest in one place rather than another. The sensible thing is to tackle it in a local way, which is what we are doing.

Kevin Brennan: Between 27 September and 3 October, 89% of positive cases were reached by local authority public health tracing in Wales, but for the equivalent period just 74% were reached by the outsourced, centralised system in England. That is not ideology; that is just better virus-control policy to save lives. Test and trace needs trust to be effective. Does the Prime Minister now acknowledge that outsourcing the system was an error?

Boris Johnson: No—no more than getting a vaccine or test device from the private sector is an error. We need a mixture of public and private and of national and local, and that is what we are doing.

Jason McCartney: My Colne Valley constituency, as part of the Kirklees Council area, which is part of West Yorkshire, is going into tier 2 of the covid restrictions. Will the Prime Minister please tell me and my constituents whether we are now tied to the fortunes of West Yorkshire as a whole? Or can smaller, more localised geographical areas move out of the tiers as people make local sacrifices?

Boris Johnson: I appreciate the sacrifice that my hon. Friend’s constituents have been making, and I am sorry for the privations that are being visited on people across the country. To see exactly where you are and  what you need to do, get on the website. As soon as we can take areas out of the measures that they are in, of course we will do so.

Bill Esterson: Without evidence, people will not have confidence in the Government, so what is the scientific evidence for the restrictions that the Prime Minister has announced, which will affect 1.5 million people in the Liverpool city region? People need hope that these measures will be short-lived, so what is the exit strategy and specifically what will the infection rate have to fall to for the restrictions in the Liverpool city region to be lifted?

Boris Johnson: Clearly, the most important thing is that the R should get below 1.

Andrew Murrison: Seasonal flu deaths for the past two years have been relatively light, which means that, in the normal course of things, we would expect a hard winter, noting that in 2014-15 there were 26,000 deaths and in 2017-18 there were 28,000. I appreciate that the Government are doing everything they can to increase the number of vaccinations, but given that we can vaccinate against that disease, unlike covid, will the Prime Minister redouble his efforts to ensure that those who are vulnerable this winter get the flu vaccine that they need?

Boris Johnson: My right hon. Friend is entirely right. That is why I encourage everybody who is vulnerable to get a flu vaccine now, and that is why we have 30 million available.

Emma Hardy: Today we had a Yorkshire briefing with 15 minutes’ notice that failed to invite all Yorkshire MPs, and neither have all Yorkshire council leaders been contacted. We are left waiting for the Prime Minister’s website update to find out which tier we are in. This shambles is creating confusion and fear, and we need clarity, so will decisions about Hull and East Riding be made together as part of Yorkshire, made separately, or made as part of Yorkshire and the Humber? How much notice of the changes will we get?

Boris Johnson: I can tell the hon. Lady that the Government at all levels have been in constant contact with authorities in Yorkshire for the past few days, and I am very grateful for their co-operation.

Alun Cairns: I recognise the Prime Minister’s focus in his statement on introducing a much more simplified restriction regime that offers greater clarity and strikes a balance between the risk of spreading the virus and economic activity. Can he tell us what discussions have taken place with the devolved Administrations on taking a uniform approach across the United Kingdom, and is he able to update us on whether the Leader of the Opposition has supported such activity in engaging with the Welsh Government to encourage them to follow suit, because this will have a major effect on Treasury support and the simplicity that businesses in my constituency can draw on?

Boris Johnson: It is certainly the case that there is a wide measure of co-operation across all the devolved Administrations with the Government, and it is also the case that, to the best of my knowledge, the Leader of  the Opposition has at least sometimes backed the restrictions. I hope very much that we will continue to work in that collaborative way.

Ruth Edwards: The measures that my right hon. Friend has announced today are sadly necessary, given the sharp rise in cases, but hospitality businesses in Rushcliffe, such as the fantastic community-owned Air Hostess pub in Tollerton, which I visited last week, are understandably worried about the impact that stopping households mixing will have on their business just as they have got back on their feet. Can my right hon. Friend confirm how often the tier 2 measures will be reviewed, and can he assure me that they will be kept in place in Rushcliffe only until infection levels have decreased in the borough?

Boris Johnson: I understand my hon. Friend’s anxieties and the anxieties of the people of Rushcliffe, and we will keep all restrictions under constant review in order to remove them as soon as we possibly can.

David Linden: It is quite clear, as we move into further restrictions and with the virus increasing, that we are not going to go back to live music anytime soon. My Belvidere constituent, Craig Johnston, came to see me at my surgery on Friday, and he is concerned by the lack of support for people in the live music industry. What is the Prime Minister going to do for Craig?

Boris Johnson: The hon. Gentleman is right to raise that issue, and that is why we put £1.57 billion into supporting the arts. That funding also covers freelancers and people who are involved in the live music industry, but the best thing for them is to get those types of events back up and running as fast as possible.

James Sunderland: I would like to tackle a misnomer, if I may. Is it not because this Conservative Government respect personal freedoms that these difficult but pragmatic measures are necessary in the short term to keep people safe?

Boris Johnson: It is indeed, because people should have the freedom from fear, the freedom from seeing their jobs destroyed in the long term and the freedom to go about their lives in the normal way. The only way to restore those freedoms to this country is for us all to follow the guidance, get through this thing in the way that we are doing and get back to normal as fast as possible.

Chi Onwurah: Test, track and isolate must be made to work; without it, nothing can work. Can the Prime Minister tell me where transmission is occurring in Newcastle now, rather than guessing based on US data? If he cannot, after six months and hundreds of millions of pounds spent on private contractors to track transmission, will he accept that fundamentally what is not working in this pandemic is the Prime Minister, and the businesses and people of Newcastle are paying the price?

Boris Johnson: It is thanks to the great expansion of NHS Test and Trace that we know where the virus is being transmitted in this country and where the incidence  is rising, and contrary to what the hon. Lady says, we know it with increasing and granular detail. That enables us to take the local measures that we are taking, and I take it from what she said that she supports those measures in Newcastle and the north-east.

Aaron Bell: Does my right hon. Friend agree that we need a flexible local approach to tackle outbreaks? Does he also agree that, when looking at which tier an area moves into, the distinct nature of outbreaks at universities should be taken into account for authorities containing a university, such as Newcastle-under-Lyme, rather than relying on a single, catch-all case rate?

Boris Johnson: Indeed, but as I said earlier, I am reluctant to make a hard-and-fast distinction between students and other members of the population. They are heir to the same afflictions as the rest of us. By and large, students are doing a great job in following the guidance, and we encourage all of them to do that.

Pat McFadden: Whatever new restrictions are introduced in each of the three tiers that the Prime Minister has announced, it is essential that we do everything we can to keep children at school and keep children learning. With that in mind, will he ensure that, where a positive case is identified in a school, the smallest possible number of children are sent home, rather than a whole year group, as is sometimes the case at present? Will he do that to ensure that children’s long-term opportunities are not damaged, that inequality does not rise further and that children’s education is not hurt even more by the necessary fight against this virus?

Boris Johnson: The right hon. Gentleman raises an exceptionally important point. A great deal of work is being done on the right size of the bubble, as it were, and how many infections should be decisive in taking action in schools. I am very happy to say that—at the moment, at least—we have almost 90% of kids in school and 99.9% of schools open. That is a great achievement by teachers, parents and pupils alike.

Theresa Villiers: The furlough and self-employment schemes have provided crucial help to many millions of people, but unfortunately, around 3 million fell outside the scope of those schemes. May I appeal for help for those groups, such as the newly employed, the newly self-employed, directors of limited companies and freelancers on short-term contracts? Some of them are suffering real hardship.

Boris Johnson: Indeed, and I have mentioned the £13.5 billion that we have already given to the self-employed. My right hon. Friend understands the difficulties of the cut-off date, which my right hon. Friend the Chancellor has illustrated. It is to help people across the country that we have increased universal credit, for instance, which will continue for this whole financial year.

Tony Lloyd: The Prime Minister knows that the control mechanisms introduced in Greater Manchester can work only if we have an efficient test,  track and trace system. He told the House earlier that he aims by the end of this month to have half a million tests completed daily. Can he make it clear that track and trace works only if those tests deliver results very quickly? When will we get to the point when those half a million tests will be reported back in a reasonable time and in most cases within a day?

Boris Johnson: We are turning around tests as fast as we possibly can and laying on new labs and new test sites, and I am very confident that we will get up to half a million tests a day by the end of the month. I am not going to make a commitment now about turnaround times, but the hon. Gentleman’s point is well made.

Andrew Griffith: During a pandemic, life and love continue. I know that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has strained every sinew to protect people’s lives and liberty, but will he undertake to review, over time, the guidelines that say that a venue that could seat 200 as a restaurant could seat only 15 if it happens to be for a marriage ceremony?

Boris Johnson: My hon. Friend, like many Members across the House, draws attention to what appears to be an anomaly in the regulations and in the guidelines. There are many such issues that we are doing our best to iron out, but when you are dealing with a pandemic such as this and when your only tool of influencing human behaviour is guidance, I am afraid that such anomalies inevitably arise. We will do whatever we can to iron out any inconsistencies there may be.

Judith Cummins: In areas such as Bradford, which have had local restrictions since July, people living in care homes have gone months without face-to-face contact with loved ones. For people with dementia, a lack of social contact can cause a marked decline. Will the Prime Minister commit to doing everything he can not only to keep care home residents safe, but to work to reintroduce visits, for example, by testing loved ones on a regular basis? Can he confirm whether there will be changes to the shielding guidance in tier 2 or tier 3 areas?

Boris Johnson: On the guidance for tier 2 and tier 3 areas, the best thing residents of those areas can do is get on the website and check exactly what is needed. But the hon. Member makes a very important point about care homes. I think the whole House feels for those who are in care homes, perhaps nearing the end of their lives and worried that they may not see their loved ones. It is a truly terrible situation. No one would want to do that lightly. We try to make exceptions for very difficult circumstances, but we must reduce the incidence in care homes, or we must keep it as low as we have got it. We saw what happened earlier this year and we really do not want to see a repeat of that.

Julian Smith: There has been really positive engagement between No. 10, the Government and local authorities in the north of England over this weekend. I support calls for local authorities to do more on track and trace and on the issue of care home visitor access. Will the Prime Minister keep encouraging his teams to look at creative solutions between local authorities and Government, and how we allow loved ones to visit their sick and elderly relatives?

Boris Johnson: Yes, indeed. Creative solutions are in order on that important matter, and I thank my right hon. Friend for that. We really have to go the extra mile in such difficult cases and see what maximum protection we can offer loved ones who need to visit their elderly relatives in very difficult circumstances.

Julie Elliott: Sunderland, along with a lot of the north-east, went into local measures a few weeks ago and a number of asks were made of Government: some £14 million for test and trace; and some £24 million for business support. Almost four weeks later, there was been no response one way or the other. Could the Prime Minister commit to look into what the logjam is and get a response quickly to our local authorities because they need to know what is happening?

Boris Johnson: Absolutely I will. The hon. Member will have heard what I said earlier about the support for local authorities, but I will make sure we look particularly into what is happening in Sunderland and get her an answer.

Imran Ahmad Khan: As Conservatives, we often speak of levelling up. However, now is the time to level with the British people. There is no silver bullet. All measures to stop the spread of covid have painful effects on our economy, social lives and mental wellbeing. Voices on the Opposition Benches believe that British people are incapable of understanding complex issues such as Brexit. The Conservative party is the champion of individuals’ rights to make autonomous decisions without state interference. Will the Prime Minister double down on our party’s historic commitment to invest greater trust in the individual to decide what is best for themselves?

Boris Johnson: Indeed, and I hope that the individual will also recognise that the risk that we carry—he or she carries—is not just to ourselves, but to the whole of the community because, in the end, we are all potential vectors of this disease and we may bring it inadvertently to someone who is more vulnerable than ourselves. That is the risk. That is why we are bringing in these measures, why we have had the package of measures that we have had throughout this pandemic, and why we now need to intensify them in some local areas now.

Tracy Brabin: Just to follow up on the question from my fellow Kirklees MP, the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Jason McCartney), can the Prime Minister clarify: if the numbers are right and they are going in the right direction, it is possible for local authorities, or areas within local authorities, to come out of these restrictions—if numbers allow and it is safe—even if the wider region cannot?

Boris Johnson: Of course we keep all this under review but, as I have said several times throughout the afternoon, you have to keep your geographical area fairly coherent. I know that that causes a great deal of frustration for hon. Members and I have been hearing itt for weeks and months, but that is the way that we have to do it.

Richard Fuller: I was down as No. 116 on the list today, so may I thank the Prime Minister for answering so many questions in the Chamber today? Regulatory impact assessments are  pesky little things, but they are absolutely vital in assessing the impact of regulation on the community and particularly on small businesses. Can my right hon. Friend commit to ask his Cabinet colleagues to prepare regulatory impact assessments for the three-tier approach, to have them scored by the Regulatory Policy Committee and laid before the House of Commons within the next 30 days?

Boris Johnson: I share my hon. Friend’s general hostility to unnecessary regulation of any kind and, believe me, it hurts to do a lot of the things that we have had to do over the last few months, but I see no reason at all why, without being too bureaucratic about it, we should not conduct an assessment of the implications of these measures as well.

Richard Thomson: Last week, prompted by data and scientific advice, the Scottish Government acted to introduce new restrictions to halt the spread of the virus. The measures, which were criticised at the time by Scottish Conservative politicians, have been largely followed by the Prime Minister this afternoon. It is vital that businesses and individuals get the financial support that they need through this crisis. In that case, why will the Prime Minister not match the public health powers that the devolved Governments already have with the financial powers which would allow them to do whatever it takes, whenever it is necessary, to support businesses and individuals, instead of always having to hope that eventually his Government will catch up?

Boris Johnson: As the hon. Gentleman knows, it is one of the features of this crisis that the UK Treasury has been able to step up to the plate and support people throughout the United Kingdom. That is going to be our approach throughout and I am grateful also for the close harmony in our approach to which he alluded earlier.

William Wragg: I fear that talk of closing hospitality venues such as pubs, restaurants and cafés misses the point, given the very limited transmission of covid within them. For example, this has averaged at just 2.4% in Stockport over the last four months. Is not the danger in closing them that people will meet in each other’s homes, where transmission is much higher, rather than in these covid-secure venues?

Boris Johnson: As my hon. Friend knows, in level 2 areas and indeed, a fortiori, in level 3 areas, there are restrictions on household contact that are designed to bring down that transmission. You should not meet other households indoors in either a domestic or a hospitality setting.

Munira Wilson: The latest technical glitch in the Prime Minister’s so-called world-beating test and trace system, which has been dubbed a “data enrichment” process, has meant that many positive cases among students have automatically been attributed to their home address, instead of to their university address. That has affected about a quarter of new cases in Richmond upon Thames in my constituency, and it has been replicated in Cambridgeshire, Cumbria, Hertfordshire, Essex and elsewhere. How can quick and  effective local tracing take place if cases are being reported to the wrong place, and how might that affect decisions about which tier areas are placed into?

Boris Johnson: The hon. Member makes an important point but, with respect to her, we are aware of that phenomenon—data showing where students, or anybody, are registered with their GP, rather than where the transmission is taking place—so we obviously aim off for that.

Jacob Young: The Health Secretary has confirmed that parts of Teesside, including my constituency, will also enter tier 2 restrictions from Wednesday. I desperately wish that these restrictions were not necessary, as they will understandably place a great strain on the mental health of my constituents, who will now be limited in their interactions with friends, families and partners. Can my right hon. Friend assure me that the people of Redcar and Cleveland, who put their trust in the Conservative party for the first time in December, are at the forefront of his mind, and that we will lift those restrictions at the earliest opportunity?

Boris Johnson: I share my hon. Friend’s views entirely and I desperately wish that these measures were not necessary. The better and more united way we can enforce them, the faster we will be able to lift them, and in Redcar, and across the country, we will be able to get on with our agenda of uniting and levelling up. By the way, we have not forgotten about that—we are continuing to do it, irrespective of this crisis, as I think the people of Redcar would expect.

Nigel Evans: I thank the Prime Minister for his statement and for answering well over 100 questions in over two hours, and I am grateful to those who have participated. There will be many other MPs who would have loved to have got on the call list.
I suspend the House for three minutes.
Sitting suspended.

Business of the House

Nigel Evans: We now have a business statement on which I will call only the shadow Leader of the House and the SNP spokesman to ask questions.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: With permission, Mr Deputy Speaker, I should like to make a short business statement.
Further to the earlier statement by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, tomorrow’s business will now be:
Consideration of a business of the House motion after which the House will be asked to approve the following regulations: The Health Protection (Coronavirus, Local Covid-19 Alert Level) (Medium) (England) Regulations 2020; The Health Protection (Coronavirus, Local Covid-19 Alert Level) (High) (England) Regulations 2020; The Health Protection (Coronavirus, Local Covid-19 Alert Level) (Very High) (England) Regulations 2020; The Health Protection (Coronavirus, Collection of Contact Details etc and Related Requirements) Regulations 2020 (S.I., 2020, No. 1005); The Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (Obligations of Hospitality Undertakings) (England) Regulations 2020 (S.I., 2020, No. 1008); The Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (Obligations of Undertakings) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2020 (S.I., 2020, No. 1046); and The Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (No. 2) (England) (Amendment) (No. 5) Regulations 2020 (S.I., 2020, No. 1029).
At the conclusion of proceedings on these regulations, the House will proceed to remaining stages of the Fisheries Bill [Lords]. The business for Wednesday and Thursday remains unchanged from that previously announced. I shall make a further statement announcing future business on Thursday.

Valerie Vaz: I thank the Leader of the House for coming to the House to make a statement.
When will these regulations be published? The Leader of the House listed all of them. Will they be taken together, or separately by region? How long will the debate on the regulations be? Will it be a full day’s debate? There are constituents who are losing their jobs as we speak, and they will expect their MPs to scrutinise and debate the regulations fully. Will the subject matter include the package of economic support available for the communities affected and the evidence that has been used to place our constituencies in the different tiers?
The Leader of the House will know that Members have been unable to take part in some of the debates on primary legislation for public health reasons. Could he confirm that we can return to virtual debates allowing all hon. Members to take part equally as these regulations are so important and they need to do their democratic duty on behalf of their constituents?
The Secretary of State for Health said on Wednesday that there will be a new convention that wherever possible we will be holding votes before such regulations come into force. Could the Leader of the House confirm that  if there are any future changes to the tiered system where constituencies are moved from one tier to another, we can have a debate and a vote on that?
We will work with the Government if there is any legislation that needs to be expedited. However, the House first heard of the financial package on Friday when the Chancellor made a statement to the media at the same time as the Prime Minister was talking to the leaders in the north-east and the north-west, and some of our colleagues—hon. and right hon. Members—were not even invited to that call. Will the Chancellor come to the House regarding any future package, because economic support goes hand in hand with lockdown measures? We should not have to hear about this in a “Dear colleague” letter when he is just across the road.
All our citizens behaved absolutely brilliantly during the first lockdown, and that resulted in a lifting of restrictions over the summer. Will the Government repay that trust by ensuring that they treat our constituents’ elected representatives in a democratic way by informing hon. and right hon. Members of any measures that are made in this House, and doing so expeditiously?

Jacob Rees-Mogg: I hope that the orders will be laid even while I am speaking, but certainly the intention is for them to be laid very shortly. A programme motion will be attached to that. It will not be a full day’s debate because we will be moving on to the Fisheries Bill, but there will be some hours of debate available.
The right hon. Lady is right to point out that it was unfortunate that the Chancellor’s package was leaked and therefore an announcement needed to be made when the House was not sitting. This is most regrettable, as announcements should be made to the House first, and that was the intention of the Chancellor and of Her Majesty’s Government.
With regard to remote activities, interrogative proceedings remain possible remotely, but it is worth remembering that attendance at this House is essential work and that all the restrictions still allow people to travel for their work, even out of a restricted area, so Members remain entitled, free and, indeed, under some element of duty to attend this House if they are capable of doing so. The commitment is to have votes on matters that are of national significance. Inevitably, that is not a precise definition, but I hope that the Government and Members of this House will work together to ensure that any issues that are of national significance, and are widely deemed to be of national significance, will come to the House first. I think that is the right thing to do, and the commitment that my right hon Friend Secretary the Health Secretary made in answer to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone) in a recent statement made this absolutely clear.
May I thank the right hon. Lady for the support that she has volunteered today and for her right praise of the behaviour of the people of the United Kingdom? We are governed by consent and therefore regulations that are passed by this place need the consent of the British  people given through their representatives. That has been given in a remarkable way, and I am sure that that will continue. It will certainly be shown in the respect by Members of Her Majesty’s Government to this House. The Prime Minister was on his feet for the best part of two hours answering as many questions as he possibly could, and this level of engagement is only right and proper.

Patrick Grady: We welcome the opportunities that will exist for scrutiny, and I refer the Leader of the House to the amendment that we tabled to the coronavirus extension motion, which detailed some of the kinds of scrutiny that already take place in Holyrood. Perhaps there are lessons that can be learned about the more open and transparent way that the Scottish Government have been conducting themselves since the start of this process.
Under the proceedings under the pandemic orders, the EVEL—English votes for English laws—Standing Orders have been suspended. Who knows how long that suspension might last for? I would still expect that we will exercise our self-denying ordinance where these regulations relate directly to England and Wales and fall within devolved competence, although, of course, we would be interested in any Barnett consequentials that come from expenditure.
I want to back up the shadow Leader of the House on the point about virtual participation and remote voting. These regulations are going to make it more difficult for Members to travel, irrespective of historical rights. Members might be in households where they have to self-isolate, or they might not want to set that example to their constituents, so I plead with the Leader of the House to consider, at the very least, virtual voting and if at all possible, virtual participation in substantive proceedings.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: The devolved authorities and Her Majesty’s Government are working closely together, and I think that is important. It is right that EVEL has been suspended during the time of this pandemic, in the way that we are currently sitting, to ensure that things are passed through this House without requiring the extra complication of the EVEL Standing Orders. I would say with regard to remote voting that the hon. Gentleman has 36 votes his back pocket, and I think he might have had 37 had it not been for a rather unfortunate resignation—least said, soonest mended.

Nigel Evans: Thank you for the business statement. As Members know, normally, the call list or the ability to get on the call list for tomorrow would have already closed. That would be pretty useless for Members, seeing as they did not know what the business for tomorrow was going to be, so the Speaker’s Office has announced that the call list will remain open today until 9 pm in order for Members to be able to get on the call list for tomorrow.
Virtual participation in proceedings concluded (Order, 4 June)

Point of Order

Edward Leigh: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Is there any reason why you have just announced that Back Benchers were not allowed to ask a question during the business statement? It was only announced today and it would have been a perfect opportunity for Back Benchers to come in on spec and hold the Leader of the House to account. There is no reason why that should not have happened. There could not have been a call list because it was only announced today.
You said earlier that a very large number of Members of Parliament could not get in for the Prime Minister, despite his best efforts, and I was one of them. I might have wanted to ask him why the old should not be allowed to self-isolate if they want and the young to work if they want, but I was not able to ask that question. Perhaps I could have asked it to the Leader of the House, but you decreed otherwise. When we have these ad hoc business statements in the future, given that we are talking about civil liberties and very important matters tomorrow, we should be allowed to come into the Chamber, as we used to, and hold the Leader of the House to account.

Nigel Evans: I fully appreciate the point that you are making, Sir Edward. Of course, you could have asked the Leader of the House for the option of a debate on the question you just asked, not ask him to answer it, but I am being pedantic. I fully understand Members’ frustrations, but the decision was taken because of the business of the House that we have today and the fact that we asked the Prime Minister to stand at the Dispatch Box and answer questions for more than two hours, which allowed us to get in 117 Members. That is why we are under time pressure today. I fully appreciate the frustration that you have enunciated.
The House is suspended for three minutes.
Sitting suspended.

Agriculture Bill (Programme) (No. 2)

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83A(7)),
That the following provisions shall apply to the Agriculture Bill for the purpose of supplementing the Order of 3 February 2020 (Agriculture Bill (Programme)):
Consideration of Lords Amendments
(1) Proceedings on consideration of Lords Amendments shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at 9.00 pm at this day’s sitting.
Subsequent stages
(2) Any further Message from the Lords may be considered forthwith without any Question being put.
(3) The proceedings on any further Message from the Lords shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement.—(David Rutley.)
Question agreed to.

Agriculture Bill

Consideration of Lords amendments

Nigel Evans: I must draw the House’s attention to the fact that financial privilege is engaged by Lords amendments 3, 4 18 and 30. If any Lords amendment engaging financial privilege is agreed to, I will cause the customary entry waiving Commons financial privilege to be entered in the Journal. Having given careful consideration to Lords amendment 18, which would establish a Trade and Agriculture Commission, I am satisfied that it would impose a charge on the public revenue that is not authorised by the money resolution passed by this House on 3 February. In accordance with paragraph 3 of Standing Order No. 78, the amendment is therefore deemed to be disagreed to and is not available for debate.

Richard Fuller: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. The ruling that you have just made regarding amendment 18 will surprise, if not stun, many people outside, who had placed much hope in the Trade and Agriculture Commission. Could you provide the House with any further details of the rationale, because on first reading it is not clear what the financial implications of this particular provision would be? What—if any—other remedies might be available to Members of this House to pursue this matter further?

Nigel Evans: I am grateful to the hon. Member for his point of order. As he is an experienced Member of the House, he knows that when Mr Speaker and the Public Bill Office look at these amendments, they do so very thoroughly. Although they do not have to give a reason why an amendment is allowed or not allowed, the statement that I have just made is quite rare in the 28 years that I have been a Member—and I think Mr Speaker has done rather well, to be honest.

Neil Parish: Further to that point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. It is not really Mr Speaker I wish to challenge. I just want to say that it was not beyond the wit of Ministers to table a money resolution so that we could have dealt with amendment 18. This has put Mr Speaker in a very difficult position.

Nigel Evans: I am sure that I speak on behalf of Mr Speaker when I say how grateful he is for the hon. Gentleman’s point of order and the way in which he has made it. Those on the Treasury Bench have heard his point.

Clause 4 - Multi-annual financial assistance plans

Victoria Prentis: I beg to move, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 1.

Lindsay Hoyle: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Lords amendments 2 to 8.
Lords amendment 9, and Government motion to disagree.
Lords amendment 10.
Lords amendment 11, and Government motion to disagree.
Lords amendment 12, and Government motion to disagree.
Lords amendments 13 to 15.
Lords amendment 16, and Government motion to disagree.
Lords amendment 17, and Government motion to disagree.
Lords amendment 18.
Lords amendment 19 to 46.

Victoria Prentis: I should begin by declaring my interests; my family have farmed near Banbury for many years.
This Bill represents a decisive break with the common agricultural policy, as we move to a system that will deliver both for farmers and for the precious environment for which they care. I was delighted to see the Bill pass its Third Reading in the other place, led by my wonderful colleague Lord Gardiner of Kimble. It has now enjoyed over 100 hours of parliamentary debate in its current incarnation, and, of course, had already passed its Committee stage in 2018. Rarely has a Bill been so scrutinised. Although there remain areas of disagreement, it is heartening to hear the loud support for British farming from all parties at both ends of this place. I will speak to each amendment in turn.

Jim Shannon: I thank the Minister for giving way; I spoke to her before we came into the Chamber.
Last week I had a Zoom meeting with Lakeland Dairies, which is one of the major agrifood businesses in my constituency. The company is keen to understand the complexities of east-west and west-east movement, as well as north-south movement—from Northern Ireland to the Republic of Ireland—for its products, which are milk products in liquid form. It is really important to have clarity on this complex issue. I have asked the Secretary of State for a meeting, because he has had various meetings with me in the past. I just want to ensure that we have a meeting with him so that we understand the process before we move forward.

Victoria Prentis: It is always a pleasure to hear from the hon. Gentleman. I know that the Secretary of State has met him about Lakeland Dairies in the past, and I am sure he will be delighted to do so again. As the hon. Gentleman pointed out, it is a very complex issue.

Edward Leigh: Will the Minister give way?

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: Will the Minister give way?

Victoria Prentis: If I may, I will make a tiny bit of progress, otherwise we really will be here for another 100 hours.
The purpose behind Lords amendment 1 is to demonstrate the connections between this Bill and the Environment Bill. I am pleased to say that these connections   very much exist already. Environmental improvement plans will already definitely be taken into account when determining the strategic priorities that sit within the multi-annual financial assistance plans in clause 4.
It is lovely to see the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton Deane (Rebecca Pow), in her place. She and I work very closely together. Ours is a very united Department, and we view farmers and environmentalists as often very much one and the same. Our future farming policies will be a key mechanism for delivering the goals set out in the 25-year environment plan, but we can take the steps we need to improve biodiversity only if the majority of farmers are firmly on side.
On Lords amendment 9, I would like to reassure the House that work is already taking place in this sphere. We have already commissioned an independent review of the food sector, led by Henry Dimbleby, and his interim report was released in July. We take his recommendations very seriously. We have made a firm commitment to publish a food White Paper within six months of his final report, which is expected next spring. This could well lead to a report sooner than is actually proposed in the amendment.

Caroline Lucas: Does the Minister realise why some of us would be a little bit sceptical about her reassurances on timescales, given that the Environment Bill has gone missing for the last 200 days? Why should we believe her when she tells us that this is going to come forward shortly? Why not just accept this amendment? It is going in the same direction as she says she wants to go, so she should just accept it, and it would make it a lot easier.

Victoria Prentis: I am currently on amendment 9. I wonder if the hon. Lady was talking about the previous amendment; I am not sure. Nevertheless, I am delighted to say that enjoying at the moment I am what my predecessor referred to as my loaves and fishes week: I have agriculture today and fish tomorrow. I would say that Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs legislation is very much front and centre in the business of the House this week. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary is looking forward very keenly to bringing forward the Environment Bill, and I am sure that the hon. Lady will have further news on that shortly.

Edward Leigh: On the subject of loaves, can I bring a message from the county of Lincolnshire, which produces 2 billion of them a year? It is the bread basket of England. This is a general point, but I was talking to farmers and I think they just want to be reassured on this point. They are the most efficient farmers in the country, and they want to be assured that when we do free trade deals, our competitors under these deals will be working under the same regulations as our farmers. That is all they want, and that was the whole point of the Lord Curry amendment about a Trade and Agriculture Commission with teeth. If the Minister can just give that commitment, they will be reassured.

Victoria Prentis: My right hon. Friend will be very pleased, when I come on to that section of my speech, to hear the reassurances that I hope I will be able to  give him.
Back to amendment 9, and I think the report we have promised within six months of Henry Dimbleby’s report will in fact come sooner than is set out in this amendment.
The response to the pandemic has demonstrated again and again the resilience of our UK food supply chain, and I am really pleased with how well Government and industry have worked together. I would like to thank everyone in the food industry—from our farmers to those in retail and everybody in between—for responding so quickly and efficiently to some very challenging conditions.
It was a real privilege to chair the cross-Whitehall ministerial taskforce, which tried to ensure that food and other essential supplies reached the vulnerable. We worked with industry to smooth the way wherever possible, including relaxing competition laws and drivers’ hours. We have also worked with retailers to massively increase the number of online delivery slots. We are all too aware that many find themselves in food poverty for the first time. As the taskforce, we were able to secure £16 million, which we gave to frontline charities that are directly helping get food to those in need, and we allocated £63 million to local authorities so that they can provide direct support to people who cannot afford food.

Neil Parish: The Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs recently did a covid report, and the £63 million and the £16 million were really important in getting food out to those in society who need it most. May I have an assurance that if it is needed again, we will move very quickly to get it there? Unfortunately, after covid there will be a higher number of unemployed and great pressure on food and food security.

Victoria Prentis: I met the Trussell Trust and the Children’s Society last week to discuss how effective that local authority grant was. I know that my hon. Friend, who has done so much work in this space, has also taken evidence to that effect. I cannot give him the assurance that he seeks right now, but I assure him that I will make sure that those comments are fed through and, if the need is there, that that is seen as one of the options available and a very direct way of getting money to those who are in food poverty. The Trussell Trust is itself preparing a report on how effective that grant has been.

Gareth Thomas: All the indicators are that food poverty is on the rise, so I ask the Minister, as I asked the Prime Minister and the Education Secretary: why will Ministers not extend the food voucher holiday hunger scheme to the half-term and Christmas holidays?

Victoria Prentis: I know that the hon. Gentleman has campaigned on this matter for some time. He has heard what the Department for Education has to say about that. The scheme that I am discussing is the £63 million scheme, which of course did not go just to families  with children, although they were heavily represented among the recipients of that scheme. We will pass on those comments and those of the Trussell Trust and, of  course, the EFRA Committee when considering how we tackle food poverty directly over the course of this winter. We all know that this is going to be a difficult time for many.
Returning to the Bill, we already have powers in what was originally clause 17, which commits the Government to
“lay before Parliament a report containing an analysis of statistical data relating to food security”
in the UK. We listened to the concerns raised regarding the frequency of the food security report and, through Lords amendments 5 to 8, reduced the minimum frequency of reporting from five years to three years. Of course, we can still report more often than that, and in times of strain on food supply that might well be appropriate.
Turning to Lords amendment 11, I recognise the positive intentions behind the amendment, but I am afraid I take issue with the drafting. The Government are committed to reducing the risks from pesticide use. We have already tightened the standards for authorisation and withdrawn many pesticides from the organophosphate and carbamate classes. Integrated pest management will be a critical part of future farming policy. Under our existing legislation, the use of pesticides is allowed only where a scientific assessment shows that it will have no effect on human health, including that of vulnerable groups.
The amendment, although undoubtedly well intentioned, is far too broad. It extends to any pesticide and any building, and would include pesticides that are important for productivity but pose no danger whatsoever to health. Even worse, it also extends to any open space used for work, which on my reading would prohibit the use of pesticides in fields entirely. I encourage hon. Members to read the amendment carefully before supporting it.

Caroline Lucas: The Minister will know that Lords amendment 11 is based on one that I tabled, which the Lords supported. I think she misrepresents the amendment. It is perfectly clear that it would be possible for the Government to bring forward regulations to specify exactly the minimum distances. It is no coincidence that Lord Randall himself has said how important it is that this amendment is passed to protect human health. That is what we need to do. The Government could go away and design the regulations, but this is the overarching amendment to achieve that.

Victoria Prentis: I am afraid I do disagree with the hon. Lady’s reading of the amendment. My case would be that we already have regulation in place to protect human health from risks, including those in the vulnerable sectors of society, which I mentioned.
Lords Amendments 12 and 16 relate to trade standards and will, I am sure, be a major part of this afternoon’s debate. I know that there are genuine concerns across the House and in our constituencies about the effect of future trade deals on farmers and on the standards of the foods that we eat. I am truly grateful for the wise counsel of my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish). I assure him, and Members across the House, that the Government are firmly on the side of British farmers and high standards. Where the balance should be between protectionism and trade, and between high welfare and price, has been discussed many times in this House over the past 200 years, and it is a debate that I for one have always been keen to have.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: Will the Minister give way?

Victoria Prentis: I will not just at the moment, but I will later.
I am afraid to say that, despite the considerable thought that has gone into the amendments, we have not yet found a magic form of words that will address all the concerns and avoid undesirable side effects. In asking the House to reject the amendments, I will set out the set of solutions, both legislative and non-legislative, that I hope will allay the fears that Members have expressed. In my view, this range of measures, and constant vigilance on the part of Government and, indeed, consumers, are of more use than warm words in primary legislation.
I will start by reiterating that, alongside my colleagues on this side of the House, I stood on a clear manifesto commitment that in all our trade negotiations we will not compromise on our high environmental protection, animal welfare or food standards. As I have said many times, our current import standards are enshrined in existing legislation.
They include a ban on importing beef produced using artificial growth hormones and poultry that has been washed with chlorine. The European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Act 2020 carries across those existing standards on environmental protections, animal welfare, animal and plant health and food safety. Any changes to that legislation would need to be brought before Parliament.
It falls to our independent food regulators, the Food Standards Agency and Food Standards Scotland, to ensure that all food imports into the UK are safe and meet the relevant UK product rules and regulations. The FSA’s risk analysis process is rigorous, completely independent of Government and based on robust scientific evidence, along with other legitimate factors such as wider consumer interests and the impact on the environment, animal welfare and food security.

Tim Farron: I want to be very clear: the concerns that people have about the Bill and the Government’s decision not to accept the amendment are not about the quality of food. We understand that the product is not a danger. What we are concerned about is the production and the impact on the producer. If we undermine animal welfare and environmental standards, we may well have quality food to eat but we will damage our farmers and the integrity of our farming industry in the process.

Victoria Prentis: The hon. Gentleman is partly right. Many of the concerns expressed, perhaps more wildly, in the tabloid press—possibly not by the farming sector—are indeed about the safety of food. I seek to reassure everybody that those regulations are in place, and there is no danger to safety or to the existing standards that we enjoy, and have enjoyed for many years as members of the EU. When we come on to the next argument, which we could perhaps characterise as a more protectionist argument, we need to balance the competing factors of trade deals that we already have, continuity trade agreements and trade deals that we want to enter into in the future, and work out how we scrutinise those trade deals to ensure that our farmers are getting a fair deal. I will go on to set out some of the ways that we hope to do that.

Steve Brine: In the letter that my hon. Friend sent to all MPs on 6 October last week, she wrote that accepting the amendments
“would make it very difficult to secure any new trade deals.”
That is the bit that makes people suspicious. I do not doubt for one second her sincerity. I have known her for years and she is a Minister of the utmost integrity, and I do not doubt anybody in her Department either, but is the view that she has expressed at the Dispatch Box today shared in heart and mind across the whole of Government, including the Department for International Trade?

Victoria Prentis: Yes, those in the Department for International Trade stood on the manifesto that my hon. Friend and I were also proud to stand on. We are absolutely committed to high standards.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: rose—

Victoria Prentis: I promised to give way to my hon. Friend, and I forgot.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: My hon. Friend has helpfully set out the very high standards that any imports will be required to meet coming into this country. Therefore, is there any reason why this House should not be given proper opportunity to scrutinise any free trade agreements before they are signed, so that we can ensure that those agreements do not enable produce to come into this country that is lower than those standards?

Victoria Prentis: If my hon. Friend can contain himself, I will get on very shortly to a long section of my speech that details how Parliament will be able to scrutinise future trade agreements. It is important, and I think that we do do that, but I will set that out very shortly.

Jonathan Edwards: Just to refer back to the letter that the Minister sent last week, the Government’s response to the Lords amendments is that they would create a vast set of conditions that do not apply to current EU trade deals. Will she explain that a bit further, please?

Victoria Prentis: Yes, I will be getting on to that in a minute, too. Members will see that Lords amendment 16 has a large number of conditions that, were it to pass, would apply to continuity—so, rollover agreements—and to any new agreement that we signed. One of my concerns, just to give the hon. Gentleman an example, is that the amendment would require other countries to abide by exactly the regulations that we have in this country. Those might not be appropriate because of climate, for example, or the way a country is physically. Our hedgerow regulation, for example, would look fairly odd in parts of Africa, but that is just one example.
I will make a bit of progress. We have high standards in this country, of which we are justly proud, and there is no way the Government will reduce those standards. Our clear policy, in fact, is to increase them, particularly in the area of animal welfare, and I hope to be telling the House a lot more about that next year.
It is important that our future trade agreements uphold those high standards. We can ensure that with a range of safeguards, parliamentary scrutiny being one  of them. My right hon. Friend the International Trade Secretary has today confirmed in a written ministerial statement to the House that there will be a full scrutiny process for the Japan deal and all other agreements that we strike. When it is agreed in principle, a copy of the deal will be issued to the International Trade Committee. It can then report on that, and I know that it will scrutinise the deal carefully.
The Government are committed to transparency and to aiding scrutiny. That includes publishing objectives and initial economic assessments before the start of any trade talks, which has been done to date. We have also provided regular progress updates to Parliament. For example, we recently provided updates on the conclusion of negotiation rounds with the US and Australia, and we are engaging closely with the International Trade Committee and the International Agreements Sub-Committee of the European Union Committee in the other place. That includes sharing future trade agreements before they are laid in Parliament through the process set out in the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010. Today, the Secretary of State set out how that is happening for the Japan deal.
We will always endeavour to ensure the Committees have at least 10 sitting days to read through the deals or potential deals on a confidential basis. We are also sharing a full impact assessment, which covers the economic impacts along with the social, environmental and animal welfare aspects of any deal, and that impact assessment has been independently scrutinised by the Regulatory Policy Committee.
Finally, at the end of negotiations, we are committed to ensuring that the final agreement text is laid in Parliament for 21 sitting days under the CRaG procedure, which will ensure that the House has sufficient time to scrutinise the detail of any deal. I know that there has been some debate in both Houses on the effectiveness of CRaG, but it is the established procedure under our constitution. Our overall approach to scrutiny goes beyond many comparable parliamentary democracies.
Further important scrutiny is provided by a range of expert groups that advise the Government on trade policy. They include the Department for International Trade’s agrifood trade advisory group, which was renewed in July and includes more than 30 representatives from the food industry—I nearly said “heavyweight” representatives, but I would not want that to be misinterpreted. DEFRA also continues to run various supply chain advisory groups such as the arable group, the livestock group and the food and drink panel. They provide expert advice as we negotiate, which is fed directly in to those negotiating.
We also listened carefully to powerful points made by Members of this House and the National Farmers Union, which is why we established the Trade and Agriculture Commission in July. The commission is working hard. It has met six times and set up three working groups covering consumers, competitiveness and standards, bringing more than 30 additional representatives to help with its work. Recently, the commission launched a call for evidence to 200 relevant parties, which asked several questions, including on how standards can best be upheld while securing the benefits of trade. Its report will come before Parliament later this term to be debated.

Anthony Mangnall: I hope I am not jumping the gun, but will the Minister look to extend the purview of the Trade and Agriculture Commission to longer than six months? It should be a permanent body that is established to scrutinise our trade deals.

Victoria Prentis: I am afraid that the Trade and Agriculture Commission is not within my gift; it is a matter for the Department for International Trade whether the work and life of that commission is extended. Further to the point of order made earlier about our inability to discuss Lords amendment 18 this evening, there is no need for any amendment to the Bill in order to set up or continue the Trade and Agriculture Commission. It was done without any need for legislation, and it will be perfectly possible and proper for Members to talk to the Secretary of State for International Trade if they wish the commission to continue.
The commission was set up with a fixed term and a tight scope, which was a deliberate decision, to avoid duplication of the work of the agencies and other groups that I have just set out. It was set up in order to feed directly into our trade negotiations with the US, Australia and New Zealand. We remain open to listening to any concerns about the operation of the commission and will continue to co-operate with DIT to ensure that it meets expectations.

Richard Fuller: My hon. Friend is speaking laudably about the Trade and Agriculture Commission but then somewhat passing the responsibility to her right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, who is not with us today. What assurances can she give us that her voice will count in those discussions about the Trade and Agriculture Commission? That body is central to the Bill we are discussing, yet the Secretary of State is not here to answer questions.

Victoria Prentis: I must politely disagree. I do not think that there needs to be any amendment to the Bill in order to continue the great work that the Trade and Agriculture Commission is undertaking. It was set up without the benefit of legislation; it does not need that. I have just set out why it was set up in a time-limited way, in order to produce a report that will be debated in the House this term, which is useful, as it will feed into the negotiations. It was set up with that timescale in mind. Whether we want to set it up for future trade agreements is something to discuss another day, but I do not agree that it has anything at all to do with the Bill.

Neil Parish: I accept that the Trade and Agriculture Commission is not my hon. Friend’s responsibility. However, on amendments 12 and 16, if the Government could come forward with a proposal to extend its life or to set up a smaller commission to deal with individual trade deals, they would see off any possible rebellions tonight.

Victoria Prentis: Oh dear. I remain very fond of my hon. Friend, who continues to tempt me, Madam Deputy Speaker, down routes that we really do not need to go down in discussing this legislation—indeed, we are all busily debating amendment 18 as if it were before us.
To return to what we are meant to be talking about, if amendments 12 and 16 remained in the Bill, they could create a long list of new conditions that imports under trade agreements would have to meet. Such conditions do not exist under any agreement that the UK or the EU have to date, and they could also apply to trade already taking place, which we very much hope will be the subject of roll-over deals.
We will drive a hard bargain for access to our market, and existing import conditions will need to be respected. However, trading partners would be extremely unlikely to agree to all the potential new requirements in the amendments. The amendments are also not totally clear on what we would be asking of our partners. For example, what is relevant to protect the environment in the UK will surely not be what is relevant to other countries with different climates or conditions. From rules on nitrates to rules on hedgerows, our standards are sometimes bound to differ from those abroad.
Given that uncertainty, I am concerned that the amendments could jeopardise the 19 currently unsigned agreements that we are seeking to roll over. Trade, of course, already takes place under those agreements, with existing import requirements met. Unpicking those and demanding the numerous extra conditions in the amendments could upset the current deals if partners refused and walked away. In the worst-case scenario, that could affect whisky exports to Canada, worth  £96 million, potato exports to Egypt, worth £30 million, and milk powder exports to Algeria, worth £21 million.

Hilary Benn: I think the hon. Lady said a moment ago that the problem with the amendments was that they would impose conditions that the EU has not sought to apply to any existing trade agreements, but is that actually the case? Is it not true that the free trade agreement between the EU and Chile in 2003 explicitly included a reference to animal welfare—the point made a moment ago—and that when the EU negotiated a trade deal with the Mercosur countries last year, it made the reduction of tariffs on egg products conditional for the first time on the countries concerned, namely Brazil, Argentina, Paraguay and Uruguay, keeping their hens in line with EU animal welfare standards? If the EU can do that, why are the Government resisting us doing that when we take back control?

Victoria Prentis: As the right hon. Gentleman knows very well, the EU has been able to put welfare standards of various kinds and levels in different trade agreements over the years. That is a perfectly proper thing to do, as long as it is done in compliance with international law. The point I was trying to make—I apologise if I did not make it sufficiently clear—is that it would be unwise, particularly in the agreements we are seeking to roll over in very short form, to add a set of conditions that, to my reading at least, are not entirely clear and that are broadly drafted. It would be difficult to agree with the partners with whom we already trade as part of these continuity agreements a whole new set of conditions and, indeed, a method of assessing those conditions in very short order. That might well put them off agreeing a deal with us. That is my concern.
In summary, the tools we have to ensure high standards are, as I have tried to set out, many and varied. They are strong enough to protect standards, even under pressure.  We have existing regulation under retained EU law, which is watched carefully and controlled by the Food Standards Agency. Parliament can scrutinise new trade deals, as indeed the Select Committee on International Trade is about to do for the Japan deal. Other experts, including those on the Trade and Agriculture Commission, can advise us on trade policy. Last, but by no means least, we have the buying power of the British consumer, who is increasingly committed to high standards of animal welfare.
We will carry out a serious examination of the role of labelling in promoting high standards and high welfare across the UK market. We will start to consult on that before the end of this year. That combination of measures will protect producers of high-welfare British food, while allowing us to import when we wish.
Turning to amendment 17 on emissions reduction targets—

Steve Brine: Will the Minister give way?

Victoria Prentis: I have turned, I fear.
Amendment 17 is another well-intentioned amendment, but it would add an unnecessary layer of complication. The Secretary of State is already required to have regard to the Government’s commitment to achieving net zero under the Climate Change Act 2008. The Government have also introduced carbon budgets, which cap emissions over successive five-year periods. If we are to achieve the UK’s net zero target, emissions reductions will be needed in all sectors. Not setting sector-specific targets allows us to meet our climate change commitments in the best and speediest way. Agriculture has an important role to play in reducing emissions, but we must recognise that planting trees and restoring peatland will take a very long time—probably not my lifetime—to deliver the best results.
We will continue to work closely on that issue with the NFU and others, including the greenhouse gas action plan partners.

Caroline Lucas: Given that emissions from agriculture have not decreased—they have remained static for years—there is every good reason to focus on the role of agriculture in driving climate change. It is not just a question of planting trees, which, as the Minister says, takes a long time. She could start by not burning the peatlands, which is leading to more and more climate change right now. That is the kind of immediate measure that could be in the Bill.

Victoria Prentis: I am sorry if I did not explain myself clearly enough. Of course we are committed to reducing emissions from agriculture, which produces about 10% of emissions, as the hon. Lady knows. It is important to work on that. I commend the NFU, which has set an ambitious target for doing just that. Many measures will be set out in the Environment Bill, which will come before the House shortly. Of course, the Agriculture Bill will be a key part of delivering net zero, as our future farming schemes are a powerful vehicle for achieving that goal.

Richard Fuller: Perhaps the counter-argument to that of the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) is that farming needs long-term stability and sense. Governments sometimes change, but this target  will remain. How does my hon. Friend balance the requirement for the dexterity that she has described in the Environment Bill with the overarching target, which could provide some stability as we achieve some of the goals that the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion has asked us to achieve?

Victoria Prentis: That is exactly what I am trying to do. I am seeking a balance between a laudable aim that we are all signed up to and not setting sector-specific targets, for which amendment 17 provides. I do not think that would be helpful. However, I agree with the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) that we need to do everything we can in the agricultural sphere to work on this important issue.
I will now deal with the Government amendments. Amendment 2 requires all new multi-annual financial assistance plans introduced after the end of the agriculture transition period to be published 12 months before coming into effect. The first multi-annual financial assistance plan, which covers the seven-year agricultural transition, will be published by the end of this year. All subsequent plans will be published at least 12 months ahead of their coming into effect. Those in the other place felt strongly that building in time between the publication of multi-annual financial assistance plans and their coming into effect would allow farmers to prepare for them and adapt to any potential changes. The Government agree and are pleased to propose that amendment.
Amendments 5, 6, 7 and 8 change the frequency of reporting on food security—to which I spoke briefly earlier—by requiring reports to be published at least every three years. The first report will be published before Parliament rises for Christmas next year, 2021. This report will include an analysis of statistical data relating to the impact of coronavirus on food security in the United Kingdom.
Amendments 10, 13, 14 and 20 to 29 were requested by the devolved Administrations and reflect the positive working relationship that we have with our counterparts there. I am pleased that each of the devolved legislatures has given legislative consent to the Bill.
Amendments 10, 13 and 14 require the Secretary of State to seek the consent of the DAs before making regulations within their competence under clauses 32 or 37. Amendments 20 to 29 give the DAs the power to make supplementary and consequential provisions in all areas of the Bill for which a legislative consent motion was sought. Amendment 15 removes the provisions in clauses 42(4) and 42(5), as devolved Ministers have assured us that they are not required in law.
Amendments 3, 4, 19, 30, 31, 45 and 46 are technical amendments that ensure that clauses 14, 15 and 16, as well as their equivalent provisions in the schedules for Wales and Northern Ireland, will operate as intended. The clauses rely on a body of retained EU law being created at the end of the transition period. We have recently been advised that that may be necessary to allow us to continue to fund existing common agricultural policy legacy schemes.
Finally, amendments 32 to 44 enable legislative powers created by the Bill to be exercised on or after the day on which the Bill receives Royal Assent. This will enable us  to act quickly to ensure that there is no gap in the powers required to operate existing schemes and to provide financial assistance to farmers.

Rosie Winterton: Order. I am sure that colleagues will be aware that this debate must finish at 9 o’clock and there are still two Front-Bench contributions to come. I will therefore set an immediate limit of four minutes on Back-Bench speeches, although I fear that may have to go down if we are to have any chance of getting everybody in.

Luke Pollard: I rise to speak in support of Lords amendments 1, 11, 16 and 17, and on amendment 18 I send my best wishes for a speedy recovery. I declare an interest: my little sister is a farmer in Cornwall. I thank all farmers for their work throughout the covid-19 pandemic.
This is a crucial moment for British agriculture. Today, Members on both sides of the Chamber are given a choice about what kind of country we want Britain to be. Do we want to be a nation that shines as a beacon around the world, standing up for our farmers, for the welfare of our animals and for the environment? Or do we want to throw all that away, just for the vague promise of a trade deal, so that poor-quality food is served to our children, standards are undercut and carbon and animal-welfare responsibilities are exported? I do not want to see Britain be the kind of country where our farmers are forced out of business, decimating our proud rural tradition.
I do not think anyone in this House wants lower-quality food on our plates, but unless the Government show some leadership and back British farmers, there is a real risk that that could happen. Labour has been clear that the Bill must include legal guarantees that our high UK food and farming standards will not be undercut in post-Brexit trade deals, whether with the USA, Australia or any other country. That is because Labour backs British farmers. In calling for food standards to be put unequivocally in law, I wish to speak not only for Labour but on behalf of the 1 million people who signed the NFU’s petition on food standards and, of course, on behalf of British farmers from Cornwall, Plymouth and Devon to the east of England, to Wales and to Scotland when I say: put high food and farming standards into law. Do it now—do it today.
It may seem a long time ago, but less than a year ago the Conservatives made a pledge on food standards in their manifesto. This is how it started:
“In all of our trade negotiations, we will not compromise on our high environmental protection, animal welfare and food standards.”
This is how it is going: our farmers risk being undercut by cheap imports from abroad within months. If the Government are serious about keeping their manifesto promise to safeguard standards, they should put that guarantee into law. If that promise was good enough for the Conservative manifesto, why is it not good enough for the Agriculture Bill, this Government’s flagship piece of legislation on food and farming? I say to the Minister that refusing to put that piece of the manifesto into law raises the question as to whether thar part of the manifesto was truly meant and whether that promise can be believed.
Undercutting our farmers at the very moment that farm support payments are being radically overhauled creates a lot of uncertainty for those working in agriculture. Farmers are already facing massive uncertainty over our trading relationship with the EU, our biggest export market for agricultural products. They are up for the challenge of decarbonising food production and they largely back the new farm payment scheme, as Labour does, although more detail on that, to be published shortly, would go a long way to building support among farmers for it. However, all that good will is going to be for naught if Ministers allow the economic foundation of farming to be washed away. They will do that by rightly holding our farmers to high standards, but opening a back door to the import of lower-quality food.
Labour MPs will tonight back amendments that protect Britain’s food standards, not just because that is the right thing to do, but because we have listened to farmers and we stand alongside them. The Conservative party, save for a courageous few, must look carefully at what they will be voting for tonight. This Bill needs cool heads, not firm party Whips. I saw a lot of Conservative Members pose for photos for Back British Farming Day in September—every day should be Back British Farming Day. On this day, when our farmers need us, we have a chance to see who are the real friends of farming, who are there when the weather is bleak and a job needs to be done, and who are there only when the sun shines.

Edward Leigh: Why does the hon. Gentleman think that so few British farmers vote Labour? Is it because they recognise Labour as a metropolitan elite outfit?

Luke Pollard: I am grateful for that intervention, because it gives me a chance to say that we back our British farmers. Tonight, they will be looking at the votes cast in this place to see whether Members of Parliament that represent farming communities, be they red or blue—these communities are represented on both sides of this House—support British farmers or choose not to do so. That will be a decision for each and every Member, but let me be clear: farmers are watching what happens in this debate tonight and what votes are cast, and their votes are not secured for the next election. Their votes are to be played for. I look forward to that competition.

Tim Farron: The hon. Gentleman is making a great series of points. I am sure he would humbly accept that in the election last December the Conservatives made gains from his party in many urban parts of Britain because of the characterisation that Labour had taken those seats for granted. Is the same thing not here on the table tonight: large swathes of blue in rural Britain that the Conservatives assume will vote for them come what may? Is it not the lesson of tonight that at the next election many Conservative MPs will be in the same position as his colleagues were in December?

Luke Pollard: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. The important thing I have taken away from my discussions with farmers in Devon and on visits to farms up and down the country is that their votes are not guaranteed. The votes of rural communities  are not guaranteed and are there to be won, but they need to be won through a strong vision and through delivery. Taking votes for granted is not a good electoral strategy anywhere. We need to look at what farmers will benefit from and what will they not benefit from. I worry that leaving a back door to their being undercut in trade deals is neither a good economic strategy for our country, nor a good political strategy for those people advocating it.
I expect the amendment to strengthen the Trade and Agriculture Commission to be redrafted in the Lords, and I hope it will come back to us soon. Amendment 16, on strengthening the trade commission, and amendment 18, on food standards, are a one-two—they are a classic British double act. I do not believe that the temporary and fragile Trade and Agriculture Commission would be able to stop the International Trade Secretary, Dominic Cummings and the Prime Minister signing a trade deal with America that would include imports of chlorinated chicken and hormone-treated beef. That is why we need that one-two—strengthened scrutiny of trade deals and protection for our farmers—in law.

Jim Shannon: The agrifood sector is very important to Northern Ireland. We have built up a regulation and a standard that we have sold the world over. I hope the shadow Secretary of State will press Lords amendment 16 to a vote, because it would ensure that our products retained their standards the world over and that they would not be lost in this deal. Does he share my concern?

Luke Pollard: I share concerns about the quality of food that could be imported after a post-Brexit trade deal is done, unless there is a legal lock.

Matt Rodda: I absolutely support my hon. Friend’s points about the importance of farming and of a long-term vision to support our farmers. I think that tonight’s debate is significant for us and for the farming sector in the future. Does he agree that consumers are very concerned not only about the quality of our food and the risk of things being done by the back door, but about the viability of our farms?

Luke Pollard: I thank my hon. Friend for making that point, and I agree with those concerns. British consumers have spent decades arguing for increased animal welfare in our agriculture production, and putting their faith in those brands, supermarkets and products that have higher levels of animal welfare than others. That concern exists.
I want a trade deal with America, but it is really important that we do not pay for that trade deal with the livelihoods of our farmers. That is why the commission needs to be strengthened, providing extra scrutiny of standards, and we will need an amendment that locks those standards into law. I want the commission, as the hon. Member for Totnes (Anthony Mangnall) hinted at in his intervention, to be put on a permanent statutory basis and to produce a report on every trade deal so that this House can vote on it. Our farmers feed the nation. The least they should expect is that their elected representatives have the opportunity to vote on whether to accept a trade deal that could devastate the economy. The Minister is right that a Bill is not required to set that up, but that means that the only thing required is a choice—and that is a choice that the Government have chosen not to make.

Jonathan Edwards: I am extremely grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way, because this is an important point. Increased accountability would actually strengthen the hand of UK negotiators. I remember scrutinising the TTIP deal between the EU and the US in Washington, and one of our last meetings was with members of the food lobby, who told us, “Nothing is going through Congress unless we agree with it.”

Luke Pollard: I agree. At least British Ministers will not have to utter the phrase, “It won’t get through Parliament,” because Parliament has, sadly, voted itself out of having a say, making it one of the few Parliaments in the world that will not have a say on any trade deals with Britain.
Let me address briefly some of the reasons the Minister gave for not supporting the amendments, because it is important that we consider the arguments. Last week I heard the International Trade Secretary say that if we have high standards, that would risk having a crippling effect on agricultural exports from developing countries such as Kenya. I know that Members are concerned about that, but the problem is that it is not right. At the moment, thanks to our membership of the EU, the Government have nine trade deals with sub-Saharan African countries, and so far not a single one of them has been rolled over. We risk losing those trade deals with sub-Saharan Africa if we do not renew them by 31 December. If we care about our agricultural exports, that should be the priority. The Minister also knows that the Government should have a better plan for improving the post-Brexit UK version of the EU’s generalised scheme of preferences, which sets lower tariffs for developing countries in exchange for meaningful protection of human rights, labour rights and the environment.
What else is used as an excuse for the Government not putting their promise into law? The Minister mentioned labelling. I have spoken proudly from this Dispatch Box about the need to buy local. I want consumers to look out for the red tractor and other local accreditations when they are making purchasing decisions. But let us be real: an extra label will not stop lower-quality food being sold in Britain. It offers a meagre apology on the packaging, but only where there is packaging. Ministers know that 50% of our agricultural production does not go into retail. It goes into food service—to cafés and restaurants, food processing and the like—where the origin of the ingredients is, at best, hidden. That is precisely where chlorinated chicken would be sold and eaten first. It would go to big caterers and into mass production—places where consumers cannot tell where their food has come from or know the standards it is produced to. It would go into hospital food and into meals for our armed forces and our schools. The Government claim that the amendment is unnecessary because standards are included in the withdrawal Act, as we have just heard. However, the EU’s import restrictions apply only to products banned on the basis of safety and, as was mentioned earlier, they do not deal with animal welfare or environmental protections, which is what this amendment seeks to do.
There is one more excuse, which has not been spoken about so far, that is absolutely key to the Government’s future trade strategy, and it is about taxes. Could not Ministers just tax these products a wee bit more with an extra couple of pence on tariffs and let the market  decide? This is something I have heard and read about in Tory-leaning media, but let me be clear with Ministers, because all those in this place know what the Treasury and the Department for International Trade are planning. Charging a few extra pence on lower-standard food import tariffs while public anger is at its highest will give Ministers a convenient soundbite to offer a nation ill at ease with the Government’s policy. They will then be able to drop those tariffs through secondary legislation when the anger dies down. The end result will be that we still have chlorinated chicken and food produced to lower standards on sale, whether it is for a few pence more or a few pence less. That will not stop those products being sold in the United Kingdom. It will authorise and legitimise it, and it will sign the death warrant for farm businesses the nation over. That is why we want these standards put into law.
In the midst of a climate and ecological emergency, it is imperative that we have a clear road map for agriculture to reach net zero. The NFU has done a good job in its work so far, and I want to thank farmers for the efforts they are making to cut carbon emissions, which are a sizeable chunk of UK emissions. That is why we back efforts to have clear, sector-specific plans that farmers can follow, and we also back efforts including the amendment tabled by Lord Whitty in the other place on pesticides. That matters because of the impact not only on the environment but on human health.
I fear that, in seeking to disagree with these amendments tonight, the Government might be trying to hint at the Salisbury convention, which is that the other place should not interfere with manifesto commitments. However, the Lords are doing something different from that: they are doing a reverse Salisbury. They are asking the Government to stick to their manifesto commitments. In such circumstances, the Salisbury principle does not apply, and the Lords should ask the Commons to reconsider these amendments on food safety and on the Trade and Agriculture Commission again—and again, if necessary. Every time this House votes on these amendments, more and more farmers will be looking at the voting list to see which Members support the farmers and which have chosen not to. We cannot take any votes for granted, and I warn Conservative Members against doing so.
Just last week the Leader of the Opposition and I visited the farm of the NFU president, Minette Batters, in Wiltshire. That was our second meeting with the NFU president in a month, but the Prime Minister still refuses to meet her. I would be grateful if the Minister could pull a few strings to get the PM to meet farmers to talk about this issue.

Victoria Prentis: I believe that the president of the NFU will be visiting Downing Street later this week.

Luke Pollard: Where the Leader of the Opposition leads, the Government follow. I am grateful for that. That visit to Wiltshire was not in vain, I see—[Interruption.]
What kind of country do we want to be? [Interruption.] I do not think that a country whose MPs shout at each other in a debate like this is a country that is good—[Interruption.] I have not heard that from this side and I encourage those on the Conservative side to recognise that as well. There are people watching this debate in farming communities up and down the country. They  are tuning into BBC Parliament and parliamentlive.tv for the first ever time, and they should see parliamentarians performing at our best in this debate.
I want Britain to be a nation of quality—[Interruption.] Let me start that again, because the people at home might not have heard me over the chuntering. I want Britain to be a nation of quality, of high standards, of ethical treatment of animals and of stewardship of our landscapes; a custodian of high environmental standards; and a nation that challenges other nations to compete with us fiercely but to do so on a level playing field. I want Britain to be a beacon country with our values proudly on show, not just in soundbites and manifestos, but in our laws, trade deals and behaviours. That is what the amendments on food standards seek to achieve. It is a moral compass that this Agriculture Bill desperately needs.a It is because of that, and because Labour backs our farmers, that we have voted at every opportunity against the Bill, which singularly fails to protect our farmers from being undercut by food produced to lower animal welfare and environmental standards abroad. Our farmers are not afraid of competition but, when we maintain high standards for them but allow potentially food produced at lower standards to be imported, that is unfair. It is not a level playing field. That food would be illegal for British farmers to produce here, but somehow it would be okay to have it through the back door. That cannot be allowed and that is why our food standards must be put into law.
No party should take rural communities for granted. I respect an awful lot of the voices on the other side, who I have not heard shouting today, for their work in standing up for their farmers and in trying to convince DEFRA Ministers and, importantly, the Ministers who hold the whip hand in the Department for International Trade to recognise the importance of putting our standards in law. It is a fight we must continue. It is a fight that must be continued by those on the Opposition Benches, but equally I encourage those on the Government Benches to do so, too. There is a cross-party concern about food standards. There is cross-party support broadly for the words in the Bill about changing our farm support methods, but the words that are missing—those that would put our food and farming standards into law—are the ones that we need to focus on. That is why we will be voting for the amendments with pride, passion and patriotism tonight.

Rosie Winterton: I call the Chair of the Select Committee, Neil Parish.

Neil Parish: It is great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard) and to speak in this debate. I say clearly that I shall be supporting amendments 2, 12 and 16 tonight and I will explain why.
This Agriculture Bill goes exactly in the right direction. As we have left the common agricultural policy, we can now move in a more environmental direction. We can bring in much more rotation of crops and go back to traditional types of farming. We can reduce nitrates and pesticides, plant more trees, capture carbon in more grassland, have more grass-fed beef and lamb, and produce poultry and pigs to very high standards. We are reducing all the time the amount of antibiotics used, and we are creating a much greater and better product. Animal welfare is at the centre of our production.
I welcome the fact that our farmers have produced such excellent food throughout this pandemic, and I pay tribute to the food processing industry, which is worth £120 billion to this country. It is the largest manufacturing industry in this country and 60% of the food that is processed is produced in this country under very high standards. So the whole direction of the Bill is right, it has to be the case and I very much support it and the way that we go. It gives us the independence and sovereignty to do it. Likewise, we now have the sovereignty to develop, argue for and produce our own trade deals. So why are we not a great beacon of animal welfare and the environment as we negotiate these trade deals? We have in our manifesto a commitment both on animal welfare and the environment. Would it not be right for the Secretary of State for International Trade to have the armour of Parliament’s backing to say, “I can’t negotiate away that particular part of the deal with you because it is written down in law”?

Richard Fuller: Does my hon. Friend agree with me on the frustration that hon. Members feel that, when it comes to trade deals, we are told at one time, “Well, it can be in that Bill,” and at another time, “It needs to be in that Bill”? Would it not have been helpful if the Department for International Trade had been here today?

Neil Parish: It would indeed. My hon. Friend is right. If we try to amend the Trade Bill, we get told, “That is not the place to put it.” If the Agriculture Bill is not the place to put it either, where is the place to put it? The place to put it is in this Parliament. I will very much support this, as do my hon. Friend and many Conservative Members. We want to negotiate very good trade deals, and not only with Australia, New Zealand and America. Do not forget that this is about not today and tomorrow, but probably several years down the road. What about when we start to do trade deals with Brazil? Brazil has burned down 2.5 million acres of rainforest this year and what do they do? They grow sugar beet and soya, they produce poultry intensively and they destroy the rainforest. When they have destroyed 2.5 million acres of rainforest every year, they will move on to another bit of land. They have destroyed the fertility of that land. They do not even farm the land in the right way. They destroy the environment and the land for farming and if we are not careful, that is exactly where we are going to take it.
Instead of that, we—the British—believe in animal welfare. We believe in the environment. All the signatories to the NFU petition agree on the way forward. So do the Government. I have every respect for the Government and the Minister. But, for goodness’ sake, get the backing of Parliament. Yes, we will get a certain amount of scrutiny of the trade deals when they are done, but the deal will be signed and then presented before Parliament. There will then be the option of objecting to it, or voting it through.
That is why the work has to be done. We do not need the whole Trade and Agriculture Commission; we could have a slimmed down version that could consider every individual deal over the years, as we sign it, to ensure that we do not trade away those standards, and that we improve standards across the world—that we raise the standards of animal welfare and the environment. Surely that is laudable. All of us can support that, irrespective of our political party. I urge the Government: instead of saying, “We’ve got the power. We can vote it down and  stop those rebels whatever happens”, we want something really positive from the Government. I support the Minister very much in what she is doing, but let us get this measure in, so that we can actually support trade and trade deals in the future.

Deidre Brock: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish), who made a passionate speech.
I rise principally to speak in support of amendment 16, although I will have a few words to say about the missing amendment 18. Amendments such as Lords amendments 9 on a national food strategy, and 11 on pesticides, are clearly devolved matters and properly decided by our Government in Scotland. However, in solidarity with our friends in England, I wish to express disappointment that this Government have chosen simply to strike all the amendments down, rather than to amend them and use them to improve the Bill. I cannot understand why they have not taken that opportunity. Regrettably, however, I think I am right in saying that very few—if any—Opposition amendments or new clauses were accepted by the Government throughout the course of the Bill, so perhaps I should not be so surprised.
I welcome Government amendments 10 to 15 and 20 to 29, which mean that the UK Government will have to gain the consent of the devolved authorities in further areas such as organics, but once again I contrast that approach with the bulldozing of devolved competences in the internal market Bill. I wonder if one hand of the Government is aware of what the other hand is up to.
There remains plenty to be worried about in the Bill, and the dismantling of England’s farm support system, to be replaced by some amorphous idea of payments for public goods, must rate high on that list. The issue that causes the most concern to food producers in Scotland, and to Scottish consumers, is that of food standards. The extra scrutiny measures that the Minister has announced are of course useful, but I look in vain for something with real teeth that can quell the very real concerns that we hear from all corners of the House.
One provision that has been inserted into the Bill will do something to address that gap and place the issue of food standards in the Bill, and we should keep that provision. Lords amendment 16 relates to clause 42 of the Bill, as it was bounced back here from over there, and it should be kept in the Bill. It is not perfect but it is serviceable and it offers some protection against what are sometimes appallingly poor standards of food production in other countries.
Shoppers have some idea of the quality of what they buy in the shopsbecause of the regulations in place to ensure the quality of food from farm to shelf. Those regulations—those safeguards—will be dumped if this Government get their way. We know that because there have been plenty of opportunities to put protections and guarantees into legislation. This Bill, the Trade Bill, the withdrawal Bill and the internal market Bill have all been passed up by the Government, denied, done down and refused.
This Government sometimes seem hell-bent on reducing the quality of our food supplies and, frankly, it is not entirely clear why. Some have suggested that it is to  secure a trade deal here or there, but that seems too high a price to pay. I am left considering only the possibility that they simply have not thought this through because the alternative explanation is that they intend to drive down food standards and consumer protections. Some say that that is because they have the wealth to ensure sufficient high-quality food for themselves and so give not a jot for the health and wellbeing of others. That, frankly, would seem a strange attitude for elected representatives to have. However, I see few other explanations for the refusal at least to replicate our existing food protections. The former Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, now Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, promised us several times that UK food standards would not be undermined by future trade deals. Here is the best and very possibly the last opportunity for this DEFRA Secretary and his Minister to do something about it.
I must say a few words about the rather hamfisted use of parliamentary tactics by the Government to prevent debate and a vote on Lords amendment 18, which would require the Trade and Agriculture Commission to make a report on recommendations for policies to protect food standards, domestic production, the environment and animal welfare, and the Secretary of State to lay the report before Parliament. It has long been suspected that the Trade and Agriculture Commission was created so that the Government might evade the wrath of their Back Benchers and a likely defeat in this Chamber. Here was an opportunity to create a Trade and Agriculture Commission with some real purpose and strength, instead of leaving us with the weak sop to the Government’s MPs that it is currently. Instead of creating a commission that had the ability to overturn any decisions made by Governments that might threaten the viability of our farming and food and drink sectors, we have a body that is frankly nothing more than a poodle of the International Trade Department. It looks like yet another internal battle between the Department for International Trade and DEFRA has been comprehensively won, or lost, once again.
We in the SNP have repeatedly expressed concern about the body over its lack of any real teeth and the lack of regard for the devolved authorities. These proposals do not go far enough, or did not go far enough, as reports do not provide concrete protections or requirements for the Government to act, but they also do not reflect the reality of devolved competences, and we insist that the devolution settlement be considered and respected in any reports so produced. With all that said, the Tory Government are offering nothing more than empty words as a protection for food standards and a report by the Trade and Agriculture Commission would at least do more than that to protect food standards. However, as we see tonight, even that wee bit of protection has been blocked by the Government.
All Scottish MPs received a letter signed by dozens of farming, health, environmental and social justice organisations recently pleading with us to support higher food standards through these amendments—from the National Farmers Union Scotland, to Citizens Advice Scotland, the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds Scotland, the Leith Community Crops in Pots, Unite Scotland, Unison Scotland, the Trussell Trust and many, many more. The question for me is: will the Scottish Tories ignore them all?
I note from the most recent survey of Which? on the subject that some 95% of the respondents from Scotland who voted for the Conservatives in 2019 called for food standards to be maintained, with around three quarters of them saying that they were uneasy, first, because the UK Government had not entirely ruled out for good lifting the bans on chlorinated chicken or hormone-treated beef; and, secondly, because such bans could be lifted with a vote in Parliament. Again, I call on the Scottish Tories to do the right thing by all their constituents—to give them the protection that our citizens look to their elected representatives to provide and vote for this amendment to stay within the Bill. We challenged Scotland’s supine six to do the right thing by their constituents and by the people of Scotland at the time of the Trade Bill debates, but they meekly followed their Westminster leader through the Lobbies once again. Will they finally, this time, do their jobs and represent the interests of the people who elected them to this place?
The SNP has voted to protect food standards almost a dozen times over the course of the debates on the Trade and Agriculture Bills, and we will not stop there, unlike this Government. The very latest poll released this weekend showed once again that Scotland has tired of enduring a series of Governments we did not vote for dragging us into situations we do not want to be in. I am delighted to say that it showed once again clear majority support for Scotland making its own way and deciding its own priorities for vital issues such as the quality of the food we eat and protections for our environment, our animals, and our food and drink and agriculture sectors. It is clear that the Conservative party had better get used to it.

Julian Sturdy: I draw Members’ attention to my declaration of interest in the register.
I want to speak in support of amendment 16. I had also hoped to speak in support of amendment 18. I commend the Government for introducing amendments 2 and 5 to 8 in the Lords. As chair of the all-party parliamentary group on science and technology in agriculture, which sponsored Lords amendment 275 on improving regulation of gene-editing techniques, I thank the Government for responding positively to this with the offer of a public consultation this autumn, meaning that we do not have to discuss that amendment here today.
Having called on Report for producers to have more time to plan and restructure their businesses under the new agricultural policy, I warmly welcome the Government’s Lords amendment 2 mandating the publication of multi-annual assistance plans at least 12 months ahead of implementation. I also strongly support the Minister on Lords amendments 5 to 8 responding to the calls from me and others on Second Reading for the Government to report on British food security more frequently than every five years. Personally, I would have liked the Government to go slightly further, but the three years that is now proposed is a step in the right direction, and I welcome that.
I firmly back the broad aims of the Bill and believe that the Government have improved it in the Lords in response to suggestions from the sector and parliamentary colleagues. However, I continue to support amendment 16 and will vote for the proposed changes in line with the principle of the amendment. This is an important  piece of legislation and we have to make sure that we get it right. Amendment 16 has the same intention on food import standards as the Commons amendment tabled on Report by members of the EFRA Committee, as touched on by its Chair, my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish). I believe that our arguments remain now as strong as they were then, if not stronger. Ministers have frequently suggested that this is not a trade Bill, but I would reiterate that the issue of fair terms of trade for high standards in British agriculture simply cannot be separated from farming and environment legislation, which is what we are discussing.
I have listened closely to what the Minister has said, I have been encouraged by her words, and I know that she has worked extremely hard on this, but, as I said, I will vote today to write concrete legal protections into the Bill. I hope that a continued stand on this issue will encourage the Government to put our manifesto commitment to maintain UK standards on to the statute book—something that will reassure consumers as well as the industry on this issue.

Steve Brine: On amendment 16, my hon. Friend—and neighbour on this Bench—is absolutely right. Is not the wider point that we would be sending out a message that we want the rest of the world to change their practices? It is not just about what we do domestically; it is about Britain being a beacon for the right thing elsewhere in the world.

Julian Sturdy: I totally agree with my hon. Friend.
On that issue, it would be helpful for the Minister to address whether the legal guarantee regarding amendment 16 would impact on the UK’s progress towards our climate change and net zero goals. I think it would, and without that guarantee, it would be much easier to bring in Brazilian beef, for example, which would increase the carbon footprint for a family shop—it would be much higher. That does not even touch on the issue of palm oil or the destruction of our rain forests, which have already been mentioned.
I will finish by talking about the fate of amendment 18. I really do think that the Minister should look at strengthening the role of the Trade and Agriculture Commission in the way the amendment suggests. I know that, technically, we cannot vote on it or debate it tonight, but I do think, as she has already heard from Members across the House, that this issue is not going to go away, and it must be addressed.

Hilary Benn: I, too, listened very carefully to what the Minister had to say, and I have to say that I agree with the hon. Members for York Outer (Julian Sturdy) and for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish), because I do not understand the Government’s resistance to putting these sensible changes into legislation. The problem the Government have is that the more they claim to want to do what the amendment is seeking, but then say, “But we can’t do it”, the greater they raise in the minds of everyone watching—farmers, consumers and others, as well as colleagues on both sides of the House—the idea that something else is going on here. So, let us be honest about this.
We all know how trade negotiations work and the pressure that trade negotiators come under. Let us consider the United States of America—with which the Government, to be fair, are very keen to get a trade  agreement, because they have decided to move away from the best trade agreements they have, with the European Union. The fact is that that pressure will exist regardless of who wins the presidential election next month. I think the hon. Member for Winchester (Steve Brine) put his finger on it when he read from the letter, in which it appears that Ministers are saying, “Well, don’t do this because it will make it more difficult”. But how is doing what the Government promised to do in their manifesto more difficult—and it is only fair?
The Minister talked about undesirable side effects. I listened very carefully but I heard her give only one example, which was her reference to hedgerows in Africa. I understand the point she was trying to make, but it does not really work when we look at the new clause in amendment 16, because subsection (2)(b) talks about standards that
“are equivalent to, or exceed, the relevant domestic standards and regulations in relation to”
the areas we are discussing. Furthermore, the very next subsection gives the Secretary of State the power to determine what those standards are equivalent to. The argument made by the Minister, for whom I have great respect, that somehow there will be a fixed process that would lead to absurdities does not really wash when we read what is actually in the amendment that their lordships have put together.
I want to talk about sow stalls, which were banned here in 1999. No doubt the Minister will be aware of the new cruel confinement law, as it is called in California, which not only bans the use of sow stalls in that state, but bans the sale in California of pork produced in other American states that still use sow stalls. I am advised that that includes Iowa and Minnesota. Could the Government please explain why it appears that California is able to ban food products produced by what we regard as cruel means in other states of the United States of America, but that we somehow have difficulty in doing the same in deciding our new rules?
The final point I want to make is on the new clause in amendment 17. Again, I do not understand the Government’s argument. The Minister said that sector-specific targets were not really helpful, but the basic and obvious point is this: if we are going to meet our climate change targets, as the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) pointed out, we are going to need progress in every single sector of the economy, agriculture, land use and forestry included. Therefore, it seems that it would be really helpful to have an interim target to help the farming industry to make the changes that we know will have to come. I am pleased to hear that quite a few Government Members will vote for them, but I urge the Government at this stage to think again.

Robbie Moore: Farming and the future of the agriculture industry are subjects that I am incredibly passionate about. Before entering this place, I had been involved for my whole life in the farming sector, and I use this opportunity to draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.
It is my view that for far too long our agriculture industry and the entrepreneurial spirit that the sector undoubtedly encompasses have been restrained and stifled  by the workings of the common agricultural policy. Through the CAP, our agriculture industry has become less competitive through ill-thought-through subsidy schemes that have impeded productivity, stifled innovation and failed to protect the environment as much as we could have. Let me be clear: this is the fault not of the farmer, but of the system they have been constrained by. A change is required and this Bill goes a long way to shaking up the system and achieving that, which is great news.
I will use my time to talk about Lords amendment 16. This has rightly received much attention and I have given it immense thought as I want to ensure that our agriculture industry thrives and is truly sustainable long into the future. However, as we look to adopt new legislation, it is vital that we scrutinise the detail and the anticipated consequences.
Let us be clear about the current position: the Bill does not lower food safety standards. Of course, the amendment goes much further and obligates that any agri-environmental food import must be produced and processed under standards that are equivalent to the UK for animal health, plant health and environmental protection. We must ask ourselves: while the intentions are entirely laudable, in reality, what will the consequences be for the supply of food that we wish to import, such as the vast amounts of tea imported from Kenya, bananas from the Dominican Republic or coffee from Vietnam?
Let us take environmental standards, for example. If Vietnam and other developing countries, such as Ghana and Indonesia, that export coffee beans to the UK were expected to provide evidence that they meet UK carbon emissions targets, I can see that that would have a dramatic impact on the UK retail and hospitality sector, as I suspect that countries would not be able to meet such requirements. Equally, it would not make sense for the UK to require trading partners with certain climates and environmental conditions, which are very different from those here in the UK, to meet our specifications, such as the UK’s requirement for nitrate vulnerable zones, which are specifically adopted to UK conditions. It is vital that that level of detail must be explored and considered at this stage, to see whether it is practical to try to enforce this amendment to a domestic piece of legislation abroad and to see whether it is workable in law. I want to see a thriving agricultural sector.

Neil Parish: My hon. Friend’s argument is that we must not put in a standard because we will stop imports from certain countries, so is he suggesting that we just go to a lower and lower common denominator to allow food in from anywhere? When we do a trade deal, we can write this into law. We could actually write this into law with all the least developed countries to give them preference in trade with us, rather than throwing out our trade to Brazil and Malaysia.

Robbie Moore: I believe that a totally protectionist approach is the wrong one for the success of our agricultural industry in the long term. We have a huge opportunity available to us. This amendment would constrain our agricultural food sector’s ability to grow, expand and meet the new export opportunities that will come from our country setting out on the world stage and negotiating new trade deals, which we should be bold and optimistic about for our UK farming sector—for example, expanding  whisky exports to Canada, potato exports to Egypt and milk exports to Algeria. I am proud to say that British beef is back on US menus for the first time in more than 20 years, and that market opportunity needs to be explored.
Of course, this is not all about export. What about our domestic market? To provide some reassurance to our UK farmers, the existing protections will remain. Food coming into this country will need to meet existing import requirements, as the EU withdrawal Act will transfer all existing EU food safety provisions to the UK statute book. We have a great opportunity, but I believe that stronger labelling and a beefed-up Trade and Agriculture Commission will help, and I am sad to see that Lords amendment 18 is not coming to the House.

Tim Farron: Let us start with some common ground. I am pretty sure everybody in the House thinks that the paying of public money for public goods is a good thing and that the environmental land management scheme is—in principle, at least—a good thing. Of course, by the Government’s own admission, the environmental land management scheme, or ELMS, will not be accessible to all farmers until 2028. We are three and a half months away from the scheme that it replaces beginning to be phased out, and 85% of the profitability of livestock farmers in this country is based on the basic payment scheme. My first ask is that the Government be mindful of that. They must not take a penny away from the BPS until ELMS is available to every farmer in this country. Given that fragility and that upcoming change in payments, it is all the more important that we do not put British farming at risk as a consequence of the new arrangements for trade.
Paying for public goods is vital. Those public goods are biodiversity, food security, access, education and so many other things, including the landscape that underpins the lake district’s tourism economy. All of them are at risk if we make the wrong decision here. Amendment 16 is so important because it underpins, and prevents the Government from undermining, British values when it comes to animal welfare, the sovereignty of this place in scrutinising and reviewing legislation and trade deals, and the future of farming itself.
What is the USP of British farming’s food exports? It is quality. If we allow the undercutting of our farmers through cheap imports—cheap because of the poor quality of their production—we undermine our reputation and our ability to trade internationally and be successful. It is important for Members to understand that amendment 16 is about strengthening Britain’s hand in negotiations. If our negotiators say to the US negotiators, “We’d love to help you out, but we can’t because Parliament won’t let us,” that is real strength which allows us to get the kind of deal that is good for British farmers, for the environment and for animal welfare. It would strengthen this Parliament. The Minister said that we have spent 100 hours debating the Bill. That contrasts very worryingly with the length of time we will have to scrutinise trade agreements that will last for generations. It will strengthen our standing and reputation as a country if we write into the Bill our determination to ensure that we uphold animal welfare and environmental standards, as so many Members on both sides of the House have said.
The only reason that the Government would resist the enforcement of minimum standards in the Bill is if they wanted to allow themselves the freedom—the wriggle room—to sell out our farmers. In a letter publicised last week, the Minister said:
“Such conditions would make it very difficult to secure any new trade deals.”
In other words, “If you don’t allow us to throw our farmers under a bus, we’ll not get the trade deal that we want.” If we care about not only farmers, animal welfare and environmental protections but the communities that those farms underpin, such as mine in Westmorland, we are letting down generations of farmers and the heritage that they promote and have protected if we allow the Government to throw all that away in negotiations. If Members want to back British farmers, they cannot just wear a wheat badge once a year—they must vote for the amendment tonight.

George Freeman: I rise as a Member of Parliament for a very agricultural constituency, and as the product of a farming family—in fact, I think I still have a place on offer at Harper Adams if this career does not work out—as well as a former Minister for agritech, former trade envoy, and chair of the all-party parliamentary group on science and technology in agriculture.
This is a major moment, when we take back control of our farming policy from the EU after 40 years, and of our trading destiny and sovereignty. It is on a par with 1947—the last great reset of agricultural policy—or, indeed, the corn laws. I welcome the Agriculture Bill, and the work of DEFRA Ministers and officials in setting out a framework that supports commercial British farming—a great British industry that is leading in the world—and recognises that its important environmental work, which involves managing 70% of our land area, requires additional support. In broad terms, I strongly welcome the Bill.
I welcome even more strongly the Conservative party’s commitments, both in our manifesto and over the last 18 months from the Prime Minister, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and my right hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Theresa Villiers), who was the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs at the time of the general election. I also welcome everyone who asked about our commitment to ensuring that we do not in any way undermine those standards. The Prime Minister put it beautifully when he said,
“we will not accept any diminution in food hygiene or animal welfare standards… We will not engage in some cut-throat race to the bottom…We are not leaving the EU to undermine European standards”.
He could not have been any clearer.
For that reason, I welcome the comments of my friend and neighbour, the Secretary of State for International Trade, my right hon. Friend the Member for South West Norfolk (Elizabeth Truss), her agreement to the Trade and Agriculture Commission and her personal commitment to ensuring that we do not negotiate away any standards. This really matters: to the great industry of British farming and agriculture; to consumers watching today, who want to know that we are looking after their interests; to voters, to whom the Conservative party gave those solemn commitments last year; and, dare I say it, to this  party, which I have always seen as a party of the countryside, of stewardship, of rural community, and of high standards in animal welfare and environmental farming. That is what is on the table when we vote tonight. Either we are that as a party, or, in the countryside, we are very little.
This should be a hugely exciting opportunity for us to set out an ambition and lead globally, to use our trade leverage to promote fair trade around the world, to give our farmers a level playing field, to embrace variable tariffs, and to ensure that we support growers around the world to follow the standards that we need them to embrace. We have to double world food production on the same land area with half as much water within 20 years. That is a massive opportunity for our agritech industry. Imagine if we used our tariffs variably to say, “We won’t accept food that breaches our minimum standards. We will lower tariffs on decent food, but we’ll zero tariff food produced in ways we know we need as a global community.”
But there is a major problem: the Government, despite endorsing all of that vision, are today stripping out the proper establishment of the commission that the Secretary of State for International Trade herself agreed to, carefully negotiated in the House of Lords. They are asking us to rely on CRaG—a process agreed decades ago that was not designed for this purpose, and which will mean that this House will not have a say on trade deals—and asking us to rely on the WTO, which specifically prohibits animal welfare and food production standards as a legal basis for any trade restrictions. We are saying that we defend farming and the standards that we support, but denying this House the means to guarantee them.

Bill Wiggin: What else has my right hon. Friend done about how he feels about this matter? Has he written to anyone about it?

George Freeman: I am grateful to my distinguished hon. Friend. The truth is that we can talk about standards, but if we expose UK farmers and growers to imports coming in at a lower price because they are not fulfilling those standards, they will not be able to compete and we will be throwing away the opportunity of having a great industry that leads the world. Lord Curry, who tabled the amendment in the other place, said:
“Under the current terms, the commission will set up for six months and will submit an advisory report to the Secretary of State, which will be presented to Parliament. It will then be disbanded and disappear into the mist. There is no obligation on the Secretary of State to take its recommendations seriously”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 28 July 2020; Vol. 805, c. 145.]
If we, as a Government and as a party, are seriously committed to honouring our commitments, I would like us to go further. Why do we not commit to enshrining our standards properly in some form of schedule—the standards that we will not undermine or allow any Minister of any Government to negotiate away? Why do we not give this House the power to ensure that it can scrutinise properly? Why do we not embrace a trade policy that is fit for this 50-year opportunity, which puts the British flag at the top of the mast for standards, and go out into the world and say, “We’ll use our trade leverage and variable tariffs to support the good, benign practices that the world urgently needs”?

Carla Lockhart: This is a vital piece of legislation, and it is symbolic. This is the drawing of a new era for the United Kingdom and our agriculture industry outside the European Union, with the ability to shape our own policy on food production, standards, the environment and animal welfare. It is a test, therefore, of what our standards will be, what value we place on our farming and agrifood sector, and how the sector can prosper while we ensure that our environment is protected for future generations.
Throughout the passage of the Bill, the focus has rightly been on standards, and I make no apologies for bringing my remarks to standards again today. I welcome Lords amendment 16, which, if added to the Bill, would provide the legislative assurances needed for consumers, farmers, processors and retailers that the Government are committed to protecting the standards that we all value, enjoy and want to see protected, not eroded.

Jim Shannon: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is very important that steps are taken to ensure that food imported into the UK under future trade deals is produced to equivalent standards to what we have been producing in Northern Ireland for the last number of years? It is so important to retain and build upon the qualities that we, in Northern Ireland and across the whole United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, have had over the past few years.

Carla Lockhart: I agree wholeheartedly. As I said at the last stage, flooding our market with cheap imports and cheap produce will have a disastrous impact on our farmers. We cannot claim to back British farming one day and not protect our farmers in law the next. I am conscious that since the Bill was last before the House the Government have made many verbal commitments on this issue, so why not put them into legislation? What is the justification for saying something outside this House if they will not enable it through legislation within the House?
We, as Members of this House, have a duty to act in the best interests of our constituents at all times. To do that, we must ensure that the food that our constituents eat, from the youngest to the oldest, is of the highest standard and that our agricultural industry—the cornerstone of our society—is protected in law. It is extremely disappointing that Lords amendment 18 was ruled out of scope. My colleagues and I would have supported it on the basis that it would allow this House to scrutinise trade Bills, their impact and the standards being allowed with our new trading partners. This House should be accountable for every food product imported into the UK.
Farmers in Northern Ireland, with a farming model largely based on family farms where the work is hard and the margins are by no means guaranteed, look at the Government’s reticence in legislating on standards with suspicion, and I share such suspicion. For the Government to demand the highest standards of their own farmers, at considerable cost, financially, socially and mentally, but refuse to make it law that importers will face those same demands is just bizarre. I urge the Government to think again. We need the Bill to allow our local Department to administer direct payments from 2021, and, as such, we will support it overall, but we do so in protest, and out of our farmers’ need to receive that much needed financial support.
In closing, let me touch on the amendments and the provision in the Bill relating to environmental standards. The farmers I represent and those I spoke to regularly are wholly committed to the highest environmental standards—standards that will far exceed those in many countries with which the Government will seek to do trade deals. However, in return for a focus on sustainable agriculture those farmers need the Government to recognise that they cannot do it alone. They need the Government to support them, and thus far support has fallen far short. That must be addressed. This House has a choice today. I will stand up for British farming and its world-class standards, and I hope that others will join me.

Kerry McCarthy: As I think you will know, Madam Deputy Speaker, because you have often been in the Chair, I have been closely involved with the Bill at each stage of its seemingly interminable progress through the House. I spoke on Second Reading on both occasions, and I served on both Bill Committees, in this Parliament and the last. I am grateful for the opportunity to speak once again today to make the case for rewarding good stewardship of our land—I believe that is what the Bill does, for the most part—and for maintaining high standards in food production. Obviously, we are here to discuss why the Bill falls short on that front.
Unfortunately, it looks as if the Government are again set to oppose attempts to protect British food and British farmers. These Lords amendments are supported not just by peers in the other place but by farmers, consumer groups and the vast majority of the British public. Anything that unites me and the Chair of the Select Committee, the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish), on farming has got to be the right call.
The amendments are also in line with the Government’s own manifesto promises. As many Members have said, if the Government do not intend to allow food standards to be undermined in future trade agreements, they have nothing to fear from legislating for that. I have sat through so many debates in Committee and in the Chamber where we have had assurances, but people simply do not believe that the Government want to protect our British food and our British farming standards. If the Government do mean what they say, I have yet to hear a decent explanation why we cannot legislate.
The Future British Standards Coalition has advised that legislating to ensure that food imports meet British standards would not only benefit the health of UK citizens and our environment but encourage higher standards in nations that wish to export food products to the UK. That was the case with the state of Punjab in India, which banned nine pesticides to boost basmati exports to the EU and the UK. That was a victory for both global trade and our environment, and it shows what can be done if the will is there.
The UK should embrace this opportunity, not run from it. We need far more ambition on this issue at the World Trade Organisation. I do not see why the UK should not lead the way so that other nations follow suit, orientating their trade policy around the environment and public health. We know that there is a public health crisis in this country and in many others; we ought to lead from the front and restore our food system so that it is about health and sustainability rather than a race to the bottom.
When we compare those potential global benefits with the risk of not upholding our standards, the choice is not only stark but obvious. Rather than promoting high standards around the world, we could see UK markets flooded with low-quality, unhealthy food. Not only could that represent a serious threat to public health, but domestic farmers would struggle to stay competitive against cheap imports from abroad. They could not have made it clearer how worried they are about that.
I therefore implore Members—particularly Government Members—to think carefully about these amendments and what kind of nation we want to be. We have a choice between supporting our agricultural industries to produce sustainable, high-quality food and becoming a world leader in environmental protections, and undermining our health and our farmers by choosing cheap, low-quality imports and that race to the bottom. I know which side I will choose to be on today, and I hope that the rest of the House will join me in supporting legal guarantees of high standards.

John Lamont: I am the son of a Berwickshire farmer, and I am proud to represent one of the most fertile parts of rural Scotland. The food producers in my borders constituency are the best in the business; the quality of our produce is second to none. Others have spoken in this debate on both sides of the question, particularly around food standards, and they are all just as passionate about their own local areas.
What this debate has shown more than anything is the consensus that exists across the House, reflecting the views of people across the country, that our high UK standards of environmental protection and food production are the right ones and that they must be preserved. Where there is disagreement, it is about how we can best do that in the years ahead.
I understand why some hon. Members will support these amendments from the House of Lords, and I understand why a number of my constituents got in touch to ask me to do the same, but I will not, for three main reasons. First, I do not believe that they are in the best interests of farmers and producers in Scotland and across the United Kingdom. We are in this position because we have left the EU, and we will soon be outside the common agricultural policy and the common commercial policy. It is worth taking a moment to remember that these matters were settled when we were members of the EU. The EU did not, does not and will not ask its trade partners to adopt all its environmental and food standards, as the amendments would ask the UK to do in the years ahead. The trade deals we now enjoy, which we hope to roll over, were signed on that basis. Making the proposed changes would put the continuation of those trading relationships at risk.
Secondly, the amendments are not necessary. The law already forbids the things they seek to guard against. Chicken washed in chlorinated water is banned in the United Kingdom. Growth hormones in beef are banned. In the last few decades, it was the EU that signed trade deals, and this House had no role in agreeing them. In the future, the House will be a player in that process. The UK Government will conduct the trade negotiations, and this Parliament will scrutinise the Government and hold them to account. In the end, Parliament can block an international treaty if it so chooses.
Thirdly and finally, I fear that these amendments would be harmful to some of the world’s poorest people. Requiring every country we do a trade deal with to match all our rules would make it virtually impossible to reach agreements with developing countries. Those countries might lack the necessary bureaucratic infrastructure to meet all our reporting requirements, or the rules designed for a rainy island in the north Atlantic might just not be suitable for their climates.
I do not doubt the sincerity of anyone supporting these amendments; I simply disagree that the amendments represent the best way forward. They are not in the interests of food producers, they are not necessary to protect food standards and they would be bad for trade. Free and fair trade is what allows us to enjoy food and drink from around the world that our great-grandparents had never heard of. It allows our producers to sell their exceptional quality products globally. It is what is lifting the most vulnerable people in the world out of poverty. Trade is a force for good, and with the high standards that we set in law and the enhanced scrutiny that this House will provide for years to come, we have nothing to be afraid of.

Caroline Lucas: Until the last speech, I was going to say how lovely it was to feel a common view coming from the Government and Opposition Benches. Let me just say why I think the last speaker was wrong. He said that if we adopted Lords amendment 16, for example, we would be imposing standards on developing countries that they could not reach. In fact, the EU has all sorts of arrangements with poorer countries precisely to be able to support them in improving their standards. There is nothing here that would inflict inappropriate standards on some of the poorest countries. The hon. Gentleman also said that our standards are safe, but they are not safe if they are going to be undermined by cheaper imports that do not meet those same standards. That is tantamount to handing a knife to our farmers and asking them to cut their own throats. It is not a sensible strategy.
I want to speak to some of the amendments from the other place and particularly to Lords amendment 9, on the national food strategy. The amendment stipulates what that strategy should contain, including things such as the sustainability of food production and consumption, improving dietary health, reducing obesity, minimising food waste, ensuring that public procurement supports a shift towards sustainable farming, and so on. It is significant that cross-party support for the amendment in the other place was strong.
The letter the Minister sent to MPs last week explained that the Government object to amendment 9 because it would
“impose arbitrary timetable requirements for objectives the Government has already committed to fulfil”.
I hope she will forgive us, but we want to see that commitment in the Bill. We have seen already in the debate that we do not trust vague commitments, and certainly not vague commitments that do not even have a timetable to them, given that, as I said earlier, the Environment Bill is already 200 days late.
Lords amendment 11 is about protecting people from the adverse health impacts of pesticide use. It addresses what crop pesticides are currently permitted in the  localities of homes and schools, as well as the exposures, the risks and the acute and chronic adverse health impacts for rural residents. It does not specify the distance required between pesticide use and nearby public space—that is for secondary legislation—but I can tell the Minister that we had a lot of support from the Clerks in both Houses in the drafting of the amendment, and we are convinced that it is an effective amendment to protect human health. It is very significant that Lord Randall, who is a former environment adviser to the former Prime Minister herself, has said how vital the amendment is.
Recent events have revealed that the precautionary principle is one of the most important scientific principles we have, and we should be implementing it here. It does not substitute for the overall shift that we need to see towards agro-ecology, but it would do something to protect rural residents who look out of their windows right now and see farmers in protective equipment in their tractor cabs, protected from the impacts of the crops they are spraying, while those rural residents have no protection whatever. We should be standing up for them and protecting them, and that is what the amendment would do.
The Lords amendment on the climate emergency is vital. It would require the Secretary of State to have regard not just to the UK’s net zero target of 2050, but to the Paris climate agreement and the critical importance of acting now to drive a steep reduction in emissions by 2030. Right now, the Government are showing their world-beating ability to set long-term targets on climate change at the same time as demonstrating a world-beating ability to utterly fail to accompany them with either the policies or the funding required to deliver them. That amendment would put that right.
Finally, as others have said, it was laid down in the Government’s manifesto that they would maintain standards, yet when they are put to the test, they fail again and again. Those standards should not be put on the altar of a trade deal with the US and sacrificed; they should be implemented. That is what the Government promised in their manifesto, and that is what they should deliver.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: After that rant, I am very pleased to take part in this debate. I have to commend my hon. Friend the Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (John Lamont), because I think he gave one of the most outstanding speeches I have heard in this House.
I start by drawing attention to my declaration of interest as a farmer. I have lived with this subject for some 67 years of my life—my father was a farmer. I have a passion for the countryside, I have a passion for British farmers producing high-quality goods, and I have a passion for British farmers managing the British countryside in the way that it is, and that is the way the public want to see it continue to be managed. The Bill gives us an ideal opportunity, through the way we are going to purchase public goods, to continue to raise the standards of British agriculture.
I have been in this House for 29 years. I have not seen a single free trade agreement negotiated by the EU that has damaged British farming standards, and I do not believe that will happen in the future. I have listened to every word that my hon. Friend the Minister has correctly  said from the Front Bench. What we do not want to do is jeopardise the 29 or so roll-over free trade agreements from the EU by passing legislation in this House tonight that would do such a thing.
While being passionate about maintaining high standards, I do not think that Lords amendments 12 and 16 are the way to do it. The way to do it, as was so rightly said by my hon. Friend the Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk, is through variable tariffs that make clear to our trading partners that if they do not adhere to our high standards, we will raise the tariffs on their goods. That is the way to do it.
The second way to do it is to beef up the Trade and Agriculture Commission. I say to my hon. Friend the Minister that the Government can do that unilaterally without any legislation. They can simply renew the term of the Trade and Agriculture Commission, and I urge her to have serious talks with the Department for International Trade to see whether that can be done. It does not need to be put in the Bill. We do not need amendments to the Bill. We might need to look at it in the Trade Bill if the Government are not sympathetic to my arguments, but that is a different matter for a different day, and I might well support amendments of that sort if I do not see progress.
There are lots of things I do welcome in the Bill, and my hon. Friend the Minister has been right to mention them, particularly Government amendment 2, which relates to multi-annual assistance plans for farmers. That is absolutely vital for how we will support our farmers in the 21st century. We want them to be producing more of the food that our British consumers eat. While I have been in this House, I have seen more and more goods imported into this country, whereas if our farmers could start to produce more, all those imports—things such as yoghurt and cheese—could be replaced with goods produced in this country. If we keep up our high standards, we will continue to export more and more to other countries. Recently, we have seen our pork and milk powder go to China and my excellent Cotswold lambs go to France. There is a huge opportunity around the world if we keep our standards up. That is the way we need to go: not dumbing everything down, but keeping standards up.
I am delighted that some of my ideas on food security are in amendments 5 and 6 and will be included in the Bill. That is important and gives our farmers the stimulus to produce more of the high-quality food we want to eat. One thing that the coronavirus lockdown taught us was that the supermarkets, such as Waitrose and even Lidl, that went out of their way to promote British food did best and are now prospering in a way that they had not previously.
The Government should not accept amendments 12 and 16, but they should act through tariffs.

Dave Doogan: In following the hon. Member for The Cotswolds (Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown), I will try not to resort to impolite comments such as that which he directed at the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas). He could not see the embarrassment on his colleagues’ faces when he made that comment.
I rise to speak in favour of amendment 16. The clarion voice of the people is at issue here and it is our responsibility as MPs to convey the horror with which our constituents view the Bill and its in-built opposition to their ambitions for food safety that respects the environment and safeguards the welfare of our animals.
The people of Scotland have spoken clearly in rejecting the Bill and its aims, and Ministers would do well to listen. If the Minister is listening for the voice of Scotland, I can assure her that she will find it over here on the SNP Benches, not over there on the Tory Benches. Scottish Tory MPs do not even speak for Scottish Tory voters, 95% of whom backed calls for food standards to be maintained, according to Which? People are asking why the Tory Government and the majority of their Back Benchers do not listen to the people—[Interruption.] That includes those who are chuntering from a sedentary position right now. Perhaps if the risk was of chlorine-washed chanterelle mushrooms or hormone-injected foie gras, Tory Ministers would have less of a deaf ear than the one they have turned to those of us who are happier dining on chicken fried rice and mince and tatties.
So much for taking back control, the newly independent, yet strangely impotent UK cannot specify the standard of food we will import going forward: John Bull under the heel of Uncle Sam right enough. That pitiful transatlantic asymmetry rings truer now than at any stage in Anglo-US history. The Tory Government have demonstrated in the most humiliating and unedifying way possible that nothing will get in the way of a US trade deal—in and of itself a highly questionable negotiating position.
The Government have betrayed civil society across these islands and ignored valid evidence and well-documented concerns about the Bill and its shoddy back door, leading to a food standards horror show. The will of the people of these islands is ignored by a Government who have purposely allowed the DIT tail to wag the DEFRA dog on food standards.
That highlights a betrayal that will take some beating—all in the name of breathing life into the Brexit myth of no global trade without Brexit. Meanwhile, Mercedes, Zara, Airbus, Heineken, Volvo and L’Oréal all sell big from within the EU to the US without the need for European Governments to betray their populations and farmers through the food that they produce and feed to their children.
The Government are capable of listening to industry as we saw during covid, when they listened intently to the supermarkets about food supply and to the private supply chains about food distribution. So why will they not listen to farmers on this issue? Farmers have been very clear on matters of provenance, the risk to their business of an any-price trade deal, and the supply of seasonal labour.
Why do the Tory Government seem to hold our farmers in such contempt? The question is rhetorical. We all know that it is because of the twin Tory totems of Brexit and immigration, which, for the hard of thinking, are one and the same thing. On a post-Brexit trade deal, the DIT speaks for Government. The Home Office speaks for Government on immigration, specifically their disastrous approach thus far to access to seasonal labour from abroad. No wonder many are beginning to ask what exactly DEFRA speaks for.
If the Government persist in proscribing the most basic protections for our food supply from the Bill, no amount of watery, weasel words will hide the simple fact that a Government that cannot act as guarantor for the food we eat cannot act as guarantor for anything. Scotland is taking a different route.

Bill Wiggin: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Angus (Dave Doogan), just as I did after his maiden speech. May I say that he needs to allow a little more of his Scottish charm to seep into his speeches? I need to declare my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, particularly as a breeder of Hereford cattle. Some 88% of Herefordshire is farmland, and 10,200 people work on our 2,812 farms.
On amendments 12 and 16, let me say that farming is not a religion; it is a business. We need to increase farm incomes, cut NHS expenditure on obesity, lose the need for food banks, and ensure that we behave towards our livestock in the way that we behave towards one another: with respect, kindness and, most of all, understanding of the huge challenge all this presents. The Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, the Green party, Extinction Rebellion and many others have their own agendas on how to run the landscape, so their contribution is not surprising, but the NFU’s is surprising, because it has gone far too far in trying to wrongly frighten people. We must remember that the Agriculture Bill is primarily a continuation Bill. The amendments would put strict conditions in place when the EU negotiates a free trade deal, whereas when we, as part of the EU, negotiated free trade deals with other countries, none of those restrictions were in place. If we impose strict food requirements, America will challenge and win at the WTO. Opposition Members may rejoice at that, but the EU will not be able to accept those terms either.

Robbie Moore: Does my hon. Friend agree that the whole House wants to achieve better standards across the board, but we must look at the detail that amendment 16 brings?

Bill Wiggin: I agree not only with my hon. Friend but with my hon. Friend the Member for The Cotswolds (Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown), who said he made an excellent speech—he did. Our two largest trading partners would be gone, threatening £22 billion-worth of exports of food, drink and feed—everything we are selling. The EU has already threatened to ban animal products, a trade worth £3 billion, only last year. That should be no surprise. Trade deals with non-EU countries would be gone too: the hard-fought trade deal with Canada and 43 trade agreements with 70 other nations. We think that our food standards are very high, yet we allow religious slaughter, we are gassing pigs in our abattoirs, we do not insist on catering or welfare standards labelling, and we fudge our grass-fed labelling—

Chris Loder: In 2018, 25% of the sheep slaughtering in this country was done without stunning. Does my hon. Friend agree that that is totally unacceptable and that, before we start preaching about other nations, we should look at our own animal standards after animals have left the farm?

Bill Wiggin: Rightly or wrongly, it would become illegal, if we follow these rules, to bring anything from the EU that did not allow that into this country. My hon. Friend is right to raise that; it is wrong. Food labelling is the solution, and to have a grass-fed label that allows 49% of the feed to be grain is just not right.
We need to be an outwardly global, free trade-friendly but sensible country. These amendments are much more to do with stopping subsistence African farmers rather than Texan ranchers. It might surprise some of the supporters of these amendments to learn that we are already importing illegally produced food through the EU. Supermarkets sell Danish bacon—with English-sounding farm names, to fool customers—from pigs whose mothers are kept in sow stalls, which were banned in the UK in 1999, on the grounds of cruelty.

Neil Parish: Does my hon. Friend also accept that when we banned those sow stalls and tethers, Europe did not, and it decimated our pig industry in the meantime? Therefore, if we do not get the trade considerations right, we will trade away all our food production, like we have already.

Bill Wiggin: I do not get any extra minutes for that intervention. I ask Members also to think about our stocking density for chickens, which is 39 kg per square metre, as opposed to 42kg in the EU. German hop growers use chemicals that would not be allowed in this country, and apparently the French will give a derogation for neonicotinoids so that their farmers can produce oilseed rape. That is outrageous. Where are the objections to buying Danish bacon? Where are the people kicking off to protect our pig farmers? My hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish) is absolutely right: when we did the right thing, we were decimated.
I want us to achieve everything that my hon. Friend the Minister talked about. We should have proper food standards and better labelling. The people we should be putting our faith in are the consumers. They do not want hormone beef; they want to know that what they are buying is good, clean and proper, and they are grown up enough to make their own decisions.
There is room for everybody. We produce 61% of food eaten in this country and 75% of that which we are able to grow here. The remainder—more than £47 billion-worth—is all imported. We have the capacity to pay our farmers more, import from international markets without substitution for lower standards, and ensure that we produce the best and healthiest food at a cost-effective price.
The Prime Minister has called on us to find the inner, or thinner, hero inside us and shed those pounds. That is spot on. If we can lower the price of healthy food in this country, we could not only see our nation lose weight but address the need for food banks. With better food prices, innovation can progress in the agricultural sector, and we can have what we always wanted: farmers receiving public money for public goods.
I want the Minister to commit to ensuring that farm incomes grow on the back of the environmental land management scheme, and not be diminished. I want the Bill to allow us to protect the environment and produce food, while ensuring that our food producers’ incomes rise, consumers buy healthier food and the need for food banks goes. These amendments will not achieve  those goals or what our great farmers, consumers, constituents and future trading partners want: prosperity and a better diet.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Rosie Winterton: Order. As colleagues will appreciate, there is still a lot of pressure on this debate, and if those who have already spoken intervene again, somebody else will not get in. In view of that, after the next speaker I will reduce the time limit to three minutes.

Alex Davies-Jones: Diolch yn fawr, Madam Deputy Speaker. On your warning, I will keep my comments brief and focused on amendments 16 and 17.
Colleagues will be aware that amendment 16 aims to protect something that, thus far, the Government have shown very little regard for. Specifically, it aims to ensure that imported food must meet UK animal welfare, environmental and public health standards. Bluntly, I struggle to see how Conservative Members can do anything other than support it. We have all seen the horror stories about hormone-injected beef and chlorinated chicken hitting our supermarket shelves, but those headlines are no longer just desperate attempts by the press to grab our attention. Sadly, without this amendment, that could be the extremely unwelcome reality for us all in the near future.
It is vital that the Government use this pivotal opportunity to commit to greater animal welfare standards. It is clear that there are ways to farm animals ethically. I am proud of farmers locally in Wales and across the UK who are committed to the sustainable, ethical treatment of their live produce.
I want Britain to remain a beacon of high standards in the ethical treatment of animals and environmental protections. The Government talk a good game on climate change, but we are yet to see any solid evidence or change that will have a positive and substantial impact. It cannot be denied that we are in the midst of a climate and ecological emergency. It is imperative that we have a clear roadmap for agriculture to reach net zero, and greater oversight of pesticide use. The Government must commit to an ambitious strategy to achieve that.
When will the Government get a grip, finally take a page out of the fantastic Welsh Labour Government’s book and commit to a consideration of flooding prevention mechanisms in their agricultural policy? In Wales, all new developments are now required to include sustainable urban drainage systems, which are designed to mimic natural drainage by managing surface run-off as close to source as possible. We also need a commitment to active agricultural land management to prevent run-off, which can cause flooding further down in the catchments. Colleagues may be aware that the issue of flooding and surface water is close to my heart, not just because I am the co-chair of the all-party parliamentary water group, but because residents and businesses in Pontypridd saw their livelihoods decimated by the flash flooding earlier this year. The recovery effort still continues, albeit sadly with no support from the Government, despite the Prime Minister’s promises. The Government can take small steps to support flooded communities by taking the lead and encouraging or incentivising farmers to take flooding-prevention steps as part of a robust climate change action plan.
I sincerely hope that the Minister will accept the amendments on a topic that she must receive many messages about. I urge her to spend just 10 minutes looking at my inbox, which receives hundreds of emails every day from concerned constituents worried about their future food standards. Ultimately, we would be doing ourselves and future generations a huge disservice if we did not uphold our stringent food and animal standards or commit to a robust strategy to meet net zero by 2050.

Anthony Mangnall: It is always a pleasure to speak in debates such as this. I thank the Minister for the time she has spent informing Members from all parties about the course of the debate and for her work with many of the farmers in my constituency.
There has been a huge amount of fear-mongering in the House regarding the importing of chlorinated chicken and hormone-injected beef, and it has to stop. We all know that if SPS standards were to be changed, this House would have a say in doing so. That is something about which the Opposition do not seem to be informing the general public. We have heard that on the Government side but not on the Opposition side. I hope that will be reinforced in the closing remarks.
Since the introduction of the Bill and in my time as a Member of Parliament, I have asked for two things. I asked for a commitment on labelling, and the Minister stood at that Dispatch Box and committed to the consultation. I accept that, as the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard) said, there are difficulties around that, but we must not see it as an impossibility. There are opportunities for us to create a labelling system that can promote the “buy local” argument throughout the country. I hope we might see from the Opposition the opportunity to develop that labelling system into something that is internationally recognised and copied.
We have also heard ideas about what scrutiny we could apply to trade deals. The hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith (Deidre Brock) said that the International Trade Committee did not have enough teeth; given the fact that it is led by her colleague, the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Angus Brendan MacNeil), if she feels it does not have enough teeth, we should either find another Chair or elect a new Member for it. The whole point is that the Secretary of State for International Trade has now given Parliament an extra degree of scrutiny.
I personally have asked about the idea that we might look at where we operate the trade commission. The hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport was kind enough to mention me in his remarks, and although I am not sure it helps my career when he does that, we do need to look at extending that commission. If the Bill goes back to the Lords and then comes back to this House, my hon. Friend the Member for The Cotswolds (Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown) and I will be looking keenly at extending the remit and length of that commission’s existence. It is important not only for what we say to our constituents but that the House has something that gives an extra layer of scrutiny.
I will support the Government tonight, but I will be looking to see what comes back from the Lords. I hope that we get some assurances from the Minister on the trade commission.

Ben Lake: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Totnes (Anthony Mangnall), although I fear I am about to disagree with some of the points he made.
This evening’s debate presented an opportunity for the Government to reassert parliamentary scrutiny of trade deals and to put into law their rhetorical support for UK agriculture. During the course of this debate, we have seen valid concerns about the importance of maintaining a level playing field for domestic producers and about importers given short shrift. It is disappointing that the Government will not support the measures in Lords amendment 16, which would address those concerns, as well as enhance parliamentary oversight of trade agreements.
I understand that we cannot vote on Lord Curry’s amendment 18 this evening, but the Government should nevertheless ensure that the Trade and Agriculture Commission is made permanent. That would improve the transparency of negotiations, give much-needed reassurances that the interests of food producers will be championed in negotiations, and offer some redress to farmers whose concerns have, I am afraid, often been dismissed as mere protectionism—allegations that are, frankly, an insult to the commitment and professionalism of farmers throughout the UK.
The Government have not sufficiently explained their approach to the sensitive matter of standards in trade negotiations or how they will reconcile different production systems. We have heard mention of measures being introduced in the Trade Bill but we have yet to see them in practice. Against such a confused backdrop, this Bill’s failure to require agricultural imports to meet equivalent domestic standards of production should concern all the political parties. If we fail to ensure a level playing field between domestic production and imports, we run the risk of endangering the viability of many of our producers. We need only think of the experience of the UK pig industry to understand the consequences of allowing imports that are produced to standards that would be illegal for domestic production. The Government have tried to claim that such a requirement is unnecessary, as they have no intention of allowing imports of lower standards to enter the UK, but at the same time we hear Ministers claim that such a requirement would tie the hands of UK negotiators. These are irreconcilable claims.
This Government have long talked up the benefits of taking back control and of how, post-EU, we will be able to set the terms of our trade with the world. Those terms should be quite simple: UK market access for imports should be dependent on meeting equivalent UK food production standards. I fear that this Bill fetters the success and the future of Welsh farming. I urge the Government to reconsider their position on amendment 16, as the Bill in its current form misses a golden opportunity to safeguard the long-term success and viability of our food producers.

Gary Sambrook: I feel like a bit of an interloper in this debate, because many Members have talked about their heritage in farming and agriculture, and the constituencies they represent have vast amounts of farms and fields, but I am a city boy and represent a city seat. I have no farms in my constituency. I have two fields and no sheep.  I have two horses, which sit at the side of the beautiful Kings Norton nature reserve. To my shame, I do not even own a pair of wellies.

Daniel Kawczynski: As a regional MP from the west midlands, my hon. Friend is always welcome to join us in Shropshire, where we have the best farming in the country.

Gary Sambrook: I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. In fact, my family name comes from Shropshire, so I have a little bit of agricultural heritage.
The reason I am speaking in this debate is that many people across the whole country, in cities and in rural areas, care deeply about standards in food and especially deeply about standards in animal welfare. It makes us proud to be British that we have such high standards, especially towards animals. That is why I was proud to stand on our party’s manifesto, which was incredibly clear in stating:
“In all of our trade negotiations, we will not compromise on our high environmental protection, animal welfare and food standards.”
Indeed, all the EU food safety provisions, including existing import requirements, would be transferred into UK law via the withdrawal agreement Act, as their removal would require new legislation. That is why I am supportive of the Government tonight. I take the Minister and the Bill at their word, because I feel passionately that we are going to deliver on these things.
Time and again, we hear the same old arguments and scaremongering from the Opposition Benches. To me, this boils down to two things that we regularly hear. One is the hatred of Brexit and the resistance to acknowledging that that vote took place. The other thing that worries me is the growing anti-American tone that we hear seeping through from the Labour Benches, and especially from the Benches of the separatists. That really does concern me. We hear it in the arguments about chlorinated chicken and hormone-fed beef all the time, yet those things are already prevented by law from being imported into this country. The Bill does not change that in any way. I can reassure my constituents, who care deeply about these issues, that that will not change.
The article that my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire (Anthony Browne) wrote over the weekend was an excellent way of describing the situation that we are in today. Are we really going to pass a law that would harm many of the world poorest people? That would be the indirect consequence of these Lords amendments. The EU does not have the levels of protectionism that these amendments are suggesting. Are they really saying that EU standards are too low? I will be supporting the Government today and voting against the Lords amendments.

Olivia Blake: You might be surprised to know, Madam Deputy Speaker, that one third of the land in Sheffield Hallam is agricultural land, and my husband is the trustee of a city farm. Farming in all its forms is of great interest to me.
The Government have insisted that when we leave the EU, our trading standards will be world-leading, world-beating, the best, the greatest, and the most fantastic in the world. In fact, they have started to sound a bit like the President of the US, and they obviously want to  make a sweetheart deal with him. Our farmers are not convinced. I have been contacted about the Bill and the amendments under debate by hundreds of constituents, farmers and producers alike, and every one of them is concerned about the future of our trading standards on food, animal welfare and the environment, as well as the impact of that on their farms and what is on their plate.
That is no wonder, because although Ministers talk about high standards, without the amendments nothing will protect British farmers from being undercut on food and animal welfare standards. The rhetoric about protectionism is reckless; we are talking about people’s incomes. The Minister may say that we do not need to worry about food such as chlorinated chicken because the EU withdrawal agreement has carried over existing standards, but my constituents do not trust the Government on that. We have seen what respect the Government have already shown to this issue, and there is nothing to stop bans on such products being overturned through secondary legislation. If the Government want to set minds at rest, why will they not accept amendment 16 to guarantee that those bans will not be lifted without proper scrutiny in Parliament?
In any case, the EU’s import restrictions apply only to products that are prohibited because they breach our standards on food safety, not those on animal welfare and environmental protection. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn) said when highlighting the issue of sow stalls in California, it is right to ban such things in the UK. That cruel and inhumane method of producing pork should also be banned from all our imports on animal welfare grounds. We need explicit guarantees on animal welfare, but so far we have none.
Given that UK farming accounts for roughly one tenth of our national CO2 emissions, we need a Bill that enshrines action on climate change. Why the Government are so averse to proposing any obligatory measures to meet our net-zero targets is beyond me. We need the Bill to be more robust, to enshrine the commitment of zero-carbon emissions in the sector, and to support British farmers and the health of our people by protecting food and animal welfare standards. Without the proposed amendments, the Bill will fall well short of that.

Theo Clarke: I welcome the Minister’s opening speech, which I listened to carefully. It did a lot to assuage the concerns of my constituents in Stafford, which is a rural constituency, and of many farmers across the UK. However, I also understand the sentiments of colleagues about the amendments under debate. I sat on the Trade and Agricultural Bill Committees earlier this year, so I had the opportunity thoroughly to question stakeholders and Ministers, as well as to scrutinise the Bill line by line. I feel that the Bill now provides a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to create an effective agricultural scheme that backs British farmers.
I agree with my hon. Friends the Members for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish) and for Keighley (Robbie Moore) when they said that the previous scheme for agriculture, the common agricultural policy, has been a failure. From an agricultural perspective we have seen sluggish improvements to productivity, poor farm incomes, regressive distribution of funding to the largest landowners, ineffectual rules, and a failure to encourage the next generation of farmers. I believe that Staffordshire farmers deserve better, and this Bill will be better.
Early this year I invited the International Trade Secretary to my constituency, and we held a joint roundtable with local farmers, who directly raised their concerns with her about animal welfare standards post Brexit.
I believe that British farmers have some of the highest food standards in the world, which is something that we should be extremely proud of. From my meeting with Staffordshire farmers and local NFU members just last month, I do appreciate that maintaining these high standards comes at a high financial cost for the producer. British farmers must absolutely not be put in a situation where they are having to compete with lower quality food from abroad. I was very pleased that the Government listened to the views of the NFU, myself and other colleagues earlier this year and have now established that independent Trade and Agriculture Commission, which was referenced in Amendment 18.
I have frequently raised in this House and with the Government the importance of maintaining high food standards, and I will continue to back Staffordshire farmers in this House. I also believe that this Bill recognises the important and primary role of farmers as food producers. The coronavirus pandemic has emphasised to residents across the country the very vital role that British farmers play in feeding the nation. Tonight, I will now be backing this Bill unamended, as I do believe that the measures set out will reward our farmers properly for the work that they do.

Matt Rodda: I wish to declare an interest: I have several relatives who are farmers.
I rise to speak in favour of the Lords amendments. I realise that time is pressing, so I will address the needs and concerns of consumers rather than those of farmers, although I acknowledge the importance of the Bill to the farming community. I would like to mention some of the very serious concerns that have been raised by my constituents in both Reading and Woodley and to call on the Government to listen to those concerns, even at this very late stage.
The central point that has been raised with me is that the Bill as it stands will open a backdoor to food that is produced to lower environmental and animal welfare standards. I wish to address both of these related issues in turn. On environmental standards, it is very important to remember that agriculture is responsible for a significant proportion of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions, including methane, and that there are also a series of other issues associated with the industry however hard farmers both here and around the world are trying to address them. The same also applies to animal welfare, which has been led by British farming. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn) said earlier, there are opportunities for us in this country to influence animal welfare standards around the world by asserting our own rights now as an independent trading country.
These amendments would also allow for closer scrutiny of trade deals. Another point that has been made quite eloquently to me by residents in my area is that we should not shy away from having the same approach that legislatures in other parts of the world have to trade deals. As I said earlier, consumers value the hard work and dedication of UK farmers, and they want to see  high standards upheld. However, it is important to understand what UK consumers are able to effect and where the Government need to intervene. Consumers do care deeply about British farmers and about maintaining high standards, and they will raise issues with us as elected representatives. However, consumers are struggling to follow a range of complicated pieces of information about food standards already, and they do rely on the Government to intervene in the market and to try to make things clear for them. They rightly believe that the Government should regulate and that Parliament should hold the Executive to account as part of its constitutional role.
I am conscious of time, Madam Deputy Speaker. Maintaining high standards is important to our country. Serious concerns have been raised by consumers, and there is an obvious need to maintain proper regulation. Given all that and the needs of the farming community, I hope the Government will now, even at this very late stage, listen to the concerns that have been raised and think again.

Andrew Bowie: It is a pleasure to be called to speak in this vital debate, much of which has understandably focused on Lords amendment 16. I am sorry to disappoint the House, but being as unoriginal as I am I, too, will be restricting my remarks to that amendment.
I have the pleasure of representing a constituency in Aberdeenshire, which is, as I am sure the House will agree, home of the best beef, lamb, berries and cereals produced anywhere in the United Kingdom. Of course these Lords amendments have given me pause for thought, just as the amendments tabled by my hon. Friends the Members for North Dorset (Simon Hoare) and for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish) did. I have listened to representations about the Bill—by email, phone, over social media, and in person yesterday at the door of the church—from farmers and food producers in my constituency. I want to put Scottish and specifically north- east farmers first—first in the queue to benefit from the trade deals that we are negotiating right now. In the next 30 years, the supply of food needs to rise by about 50% to meet the needs of a wealthier, growing global population. I do not want anything that would stand in the way of our high-quality, world-leading Scottish products reaching the shelves of consumers around the world.
In attempting to enshrine in law, as this well-meaning amendment would, that food imported to the UK
“be equivalent to, or exceed, the relevant domestic standards and regulations”,
we would put at risk our ability to sell our products overseas and put in serious jeopardy our ability to carry on importing many of the foodstuffs we do at the moment. We already import a large quantity of goods from developing countries. This includes products sold directly to consumers, such as bananas from the Dominican Republic, and goods processed into final products, such as tea from Kenya, coffee from Vietnam and cocoa beans from Ghana. We do all this under existing European Union rules, and as my hon. Friend the Member for North Herefordshire (Bill Wiggin) pointed out, we should not even get started on Danish bacon.
None of the transition EU FTAs has exported domestic welfare production standards. This amendment would mean that the existing mandate for our European Union  trade deal—a deal we all, goodness me, want to see succeed—would have to be altered. No current imports to the UK are required to meet our domestic production standards. It is precisely our high standards and high quality of produce that make our produce so attractive to the outside world. Because of that and because we believe in high welfare standards, the Government have given their commitment that in negotiating these trade deals, we will not allow our domestic welfare production standards to be in any way diminished. We will protect, defend and enhance our food safety, environmental and animal welfare standards, and we will actively seek to export these world-leading standards and our expertise to new partners around the world.
This country is a world leader on animal welfare and food production standards. We are champions, or at least should be champions, of free trade. These two principles are the foundation of what I believe global Britain seeks to be. These are the pillars of who we are. Therefore, for all these reasons, and because I support Scottish farmers and want to see our produce sold and enjoyed across the world, I cannot support the Lords amendments before us.

Wera Hobhouse: This Bill could well be among the most significant pieces of legislation that we debate in this Parliament. It covers our farming practices, environmental protections and food supply chains. If the food shortages in supermarkets at the beginning of lockdown have taught us anything, it is the importance of food security and traceability. Our constituents know this. Recent polling by Which? shows 95% support for maintaining existing food standards, and over 1 million people have now signed the NFU’s petition—yes, the NFU: that radical and dangerous organisation, according to the hon. Member for North Herefordshire (Bill Wiggin)—calling for food standards to be enshrined in law.
The most frequently raised issue recently by Bath constituents has been the Agriculture Bill. They want reassurances about the quality of the food they eat. They care about animal welfare standards and environmental protections. They want to know that British farmers will not be undercut by cheaper, lower quality products from countries with fewer regulations. Like many others, I have been supporting local businesses during lockdown. We are lucky in Bath to have an excellent supply of locally produced food from Somerset, and it will be British families like these who will be left unsupported.
This pandemic has also underlined the importance of healthy eating and good nutrition for our general health and wellbeing, yet we risk exposing hundreds of thousands of families to low-quality food, undermining the Government’s own obesity strategy. We must be mindful, too, of the agricultural sector’s role in getting to net zero. Lower food standards encourage poor production practices, and the result is massive damage to the environment. Unless these standards are legally enshrined, the risk remains that this Government will compromise on environmental protections and food and welfare standards, as they head out in a desperate search for trade deals after Brexit. Just last week, the US Agriculture Secretary said:
“We absolutely will not agree to policies that restrict our methods of production to any other standards outside of this country”—
the US. How can we ask our constituents to rely on nothing more than ministerial assurances?
The Government argue that enshrining food standards in the Bill would undermine trade negotiations. That is not true. This morning, the Future British Standards Coalition published its interim report, with evidence that it is possible to reject low food standard imports, remain WTO-compliant and still strike trade deals. The Government want Britain to be a global leader in trade. Why not be a leader that encourages trading partners to adopt higher standards? I urge Members across the House to support the Lords amendments, particularly amendment 16.

Douglas Ross: I come from a farming background. It was all I was ever interested in at school. I grew up on a farm where my dad was a farm worker and I had a passion for dairy cows—Holsteins. When I was thinking of future careers, the only green in my life was the grass that the cows ate in the fields rather than the Benches I now sit on. This is something that goes through my veins. Representing a rural constituency like Moray makes it a hugely important issue for me, both locally and nationally.
I want to say from the outset that this debate is not about chlorine-washed chicken or hormone-injected beef, which are banned in this country and will continue to be banned in this country going forward. There have been scare stories in the media and throughout the debate, which I have watched from the office and then, when seats became available, in the Chamber. We have to get past that. This is also about what our Moray, our Scottish and our UK farmers have done for years and through generations in building up their world-leading and respected animal welfare and food safety standards. They have done so much, through generations of farmers, to build up the reputation that we now proudly have as a country.
I know how passionate the Minister is about upholding these standards, as I saw when watching her opening remarks. Indeed, that passion is shared by those right across the Conservative Benches. We were all elected on a manifesto commitment to uphold those standards. I know that every single Conservative Member believes that and continues to believe it, no matter how they vote tonight. For some, it will be delivered through an unamended Bill because, they will rightly say, the Minister has said, and repeated Ministers and, indeed, the Prime Minister have said, that this Bill does not reduce animal welfare or food safety standards. Others on the Conservative Benches and around the House will say that it needs to be enshrined in law and put into the Bill. I do not believe that either is wrong. We all want to get to the same destination, but we could potentially take different routes. Some may choose the unamended Bill to uphold animal welfare and food safety standards, and others will choose to amend the Bill, as amendments 16 states, to call for agriculture and food imports to meet domestic standards.
The passion that we all have to meet that ultimate aim is shared; it is just that the route to get to the destination is different. Having thought long and hard about this, I have decided that the best way to do that—the best way to stand up for my Moray farmers, Scottish farmers, and farmers around the country—is to get this measure into the Bill. I agree with and support amendment 16 because I want to make it absolutely crystal clear to farmers up and down the country—to send them the  message—that the Government, and I, as the local MP in Moray, have their back and will support them in continuing their efforts to uphold the outstanding standards that they have built up through years and generations.

Kim Johnson: In their 2019 manifesto, the Conservatives promised not to compromise on food standards in future trade negotiations, saying:
“In all of our trade negotiations, we will not compromise on our high environmental protection, animal welfare and food standards.”
They have not put this commitment into law. The Bill does nothing to prevent British farmers from being undercut in post-Brexit trade deals with countries with lower animal welfare, environmental and food safety standards. The Government argue that all current legal protections have been carried over by the EU (Withdrawal) Act as retained EU law, including bans on chlorinated chicken and hormone-injected beef, but this can be overturned in secondary legislation without adequate parliamentary scrutiny.
Our membership of the EU kept our food standards high, but we are currently negotiating with other countries whose standards are substantially lower than those in the UK. These products include chlorinated chicken and hormone-injected beef from countries such as the US and Australia. Australia still uses farming methods that are currently illegal in the UK. Hormone-injected beef, for example, is currently banned under EU law due to concerns about public health as well as animal welfare, yet the US and Australia are reputed to be pushing for the UK to accept imports of hormone-injected beef. Chlorinated chicken masks salmonella and E. coli, and causes poor animal welfare conditions in barns and abattoirs. Negotiations are left wide open to pressure on Ministers to use their powers to relax standards. Without a clear and unequivocal guarantee in an Act of Parliament, the Tories’ manifesto promise is worthless. The US and other countries have made it clear that they will expect the Government to accept lower-standard foods currently banned in the UK and the EU such as chlorinated chicken and hormone-treated beef.
The temporary Trade and Agriculture Commission that the Government have established in response will produce only one advisory report and not a continuous assessment of individual trade deals. Its terms of reference should be widened so that it is able to review all trade deals, in a meaningful way, and its recommendations should be made subject to parliamentary scrutiny. I support Lords amendment 18, which would put the commission on a statutory and permanent basis.
Differential tariffs are not the answer, as they risk tariff wars. That would harm British farmers but still allow food produced to a low standard to be sold in the UK. I support our UK farmers, whose industry could face a final blow if such trade deals go ahead. More than 1 million people have signed a National Farmers Union petition calling on the Government to hold to those standards. That is why I support Lords amendment 16, to protect our farmers and consumers from lower animal welfare, environmental and public health standards. I urge the Government to commit to their 2019 manifesto pledge and to accept all six of the Lords amendments.

Nicholas Fletcher: I want to discuss Lords amendment 17. Although I believe it has good intentions, it is ill-thought-through and unnecessary, and would unfairly burden farmers who are already doing fantastic work to reduce carbon emissions.
The amendment would force the Secretary of State to introduce an interim climate change target for 2030, and make the Secretary of State commit to that target through regulations within six months of the Bill gaining Royal Assent. Although I agree that farmers should play their part in tackling climate change, I believe that the amendment is designed as a throwaway political point rather than something necessary.
First, the amendment would set a net zero target for farmers, but it provides little detail on how that could actually be achieved, despite its demand that regulations be introduced within a short 12-month timeframe. How could that be done? As has been highlighted in other debates in the Lords, unless there is a miraculous scientific breakthrough within a year, farmers will have no option but to produce less food in order to meet this new target. I do not understand how limiting the amount of British food on our shelves would be of any benefit, as it would negatively affect both farmers and consumers.
Secondly, the amendment would prevent the Government from focusing on other ways in which we can reach net zero. By having non-sector-specific targets, the Government can reduce our greenhouse gases in ways that are efficient and that mitigate any negative trade-offs. This amendment would unfairly punish farmers by making them reach a net zero target 20 years before other industries, many of which are more polluting than the agricultural sector. I do not understand the logic in that, and I am sure that farmers across the country will see it as deeply unfair, as agriculture is responsible for only 9% of the UK’s greenhouse gas emissions. It should also be highlighted that the National Farmers Union has its own 2040 net-zero target, so the demand that it should somehow be reached by 2030 is not backed by either scientific evidence or our farmers.
I would like to end by reminding this House that we were the first major economy in the world to establish a net zero carbon target, and we can be proud of that. Let us also not forget that from 2010 to 2019, UK CO2emissions fell by 29%, while our GDP grew by 18%. Although there is more to do, let us celebrate our achievements and continue to support sensible legislation which will ensure that we remain a world leader in reducing our carbon footprint.

Claudia Webbe: I have received hundreds of emails from residents in Leicester East who are gravely concerned about the future of food quality and environmental protections after we leave the EU. It is therefore crucial that this Bill includes legally binding guarantees that high UK food standards will not be cut in post-Brexit trade deals, whether with the USA or other countries that produce food to lower standards.
Despite their own 2019 manifesto commitment, the Government have so far refused to do that. The Government have repeatedly said that they will not weaken food standards as part of any trade deal, but they are refusing to make a legal commitment that would guarantee that. They insist that bans on lower-standard foods such as chlorinated chicken and hormone-treated beef have been carried over into UK law by the  European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018, but the fact is that those bans can easily be overturned in secondary legislation without proper parliamentary scrutiny. The Government know that, and they are already under pressure from new trading partners, including the US, to allow lower-standard imports in trade deals.
It is all very well the Government opposing the lowering of food standards in the realm of hypotheticals, but when faced with a concrete opportunity to enshrine that in law, they refuse to act. As with NHS privatisation, the Government are repeatedly asking the public to blindly trust their promises, despite passing up the opportunity to support legal regulations to achieve their aims, rather than flimsy incentives. Based on the Government’s track record of privatisation and prioritising corporate profit over public health, I do not see why my constituents should believe them on this occasion.
I support amendments 1, 9, 11, 16, 17 and 18, which would strengthen the Bill in crucial areas such as food standards and environmental sustainability. I urge the Government to adopt those reasonable amendments, which are in line with their own stated aims. Otherwise, the Government must make clear today the reason why they want to drive down food standards and not support British farmers. During a climate and ecological emergency, it is imperative that we have a clear road map for agriculture to reach net zero carbon emissions, yet there are no targets in the Bill for the agriculture sector to achieve that. Across the board, this legislation fails to protect our food standards, our environment or the health of residents in Leicester and across the country.

Eleanor Laing: I call the last speaker from the Back Benches, Ruth Cadbury.

Ruth Cadbury: Unlike many Members here, I have just one small farm in my constituency, but a large number of constituents have written to me expressing great concern about the implications of the Agriculture Bill, particularly if the Lords amendments are not incorporated. My constituents expect Parliament to scrutinise the detail of all trade deals, but Parliament is yet again to be cut out of full scrutiny and agreement on trade deals—a trend that is becoming something of a habit for this Government.
After listening to some Government Members, I really do wonder about their understanding of the dynamics of trade deals. Many of my constituents fear that the Bill and the Government’s approach to trade will open up our consumers to chlorine-washed chicken, hormone-impregnated beef and so on. The Minister said at the start of the debate that we should not worry about standards falling because British consumers will choose good-quality food, but as consumers we do not see the labels for much of our food, because almost half the food we eat is made up of processed ingredients or is catered and therefore hidden from consumer vision. As many Members have said, cheap imported foods with standards lower than the EU’s threaten the viability of many British farmers.
If the Government actually believed in the climate and environmental emergency that this Parliament declared a year ago, the Bill would set a clearer path for our farmers to reach net zero. Why do the Government not accept Labour’s amendment 17, which would set interim net zero targets for the agricultural sector?
If we do a trade deal with the US that has no conditions on animal welfare, our farmers will be at risk, because they will have to compete with low-cost agricultural mega-corporations, such as those US pork farmers still using sow stalls. To prevent the cruelty of practices such as sow stalls, we need a law which says that, in all trade deals, any imports must meet the same standards of animal welfare that British farmers are required to meet. Britain has historically often led the world on food standards, but sadly, this Bill means that our food quality is at risk, our farmers’ future is at risk, our environment and our climate are at risk, and the welfare of farmed animals are at risk. I support the Lords amendments.

Victoria Prentis: We have had a treat this evening—we have had Cotswold lamb, mince and tatties, Aberdeenshire beef, and berries and all sorts of other things. I, for one, have particularly enjoyed hearing farming voices this evening. We heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish), the Chair of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, who is basically in favour of the Bill. He was able to explain clearly how it would help the farmers of the future. We heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Moray (Douglas Ross), who very much enjoyed growing up with fields green with grass. We heard from my hon. Friends the Members for Keighley (Robbie Moore) and for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (John Lamont), who both spoke in quite quiet, but experienced, passionate farming voices about how the trade of the future was going to help others in the industry.
We heard from my hon. Friend the Member for The Cotswolds (Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown), and we had perhaps the quote of the evening from my hon. Friend the Member for North Herefordshire (Bill Wiggin), who said that farming is not a religion; it is a business. I would like to reassure him that I see a bright future for British farming under our new agricultural policies. Productive, environmentally sustainable food production—that is what we are going to support, and businesses.
We heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Norfolk (George Freeman), and I am looking forward to a glittering career for him at Harper Adams. I think we will all benefit from what he learns there. We heard from my hon. Friend the Member for York Outer (Julian Sturdy). I was pleased to speak to him a great deal about gene editing earlier in the year and I am glad that we will be consulting on that. These were experienced farming voices, passionate about trade.
There have been other speeches of note, including from my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Gary Sambrook), who was proud to say that he does not earn a pair of wellies but he cares about standards, and about trade. We heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Theo Clarke), who has served on the Agriculture Committee, and who spoke thoughtfully about the cost of production and the work that she had done to take the Secretary of State for International Trade to her constituency to speak to her farmers.
My hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Anthony Mangnall) is right: the fear-mongering must stop tonight. We are not going to be importing chlorine-washed chicken or hormone-treated beef. That is the law of this land. [Interruption.] There is no question of  “Not yet”. This Government are not going to change it under any circumstances. We have said very clearly that in all our trade negotiations we will not compromise our high environmental protection, animal welfare or food standards.
We have a range of tools to protect us. We have the existing regulation. We have parliamentary scrutiny, which I detailed earlier, including the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, which I, for one, think is significant. We have other experts feeding in, including the Trade and Agriculture Commission, which many Members have spoken about. It was designed to be helpful, to feed into the trade negotiations we are conducting at the moment. There is nothing to stop it being stood up again if it was felt that that would be helpful. There is absolutely no need to put this in the Bill. I am very happy to take as an action from tonight that I will discuss this with the Secretary of State for International Trade. Given what she said in her written ministerial statement to the House today, I am not anticipating that she will be surprised by that conversation, but I undertake to conduct it.
I also think that consumer labelling is important, while understanding that, of course, a lot of products are not directly labelled at the point of consumption. I think, however, that our consumers are canny and that they can make many of their own decisions. We also heard one other tool discussed this evening in favour of differing tariffs—my hon. Friends the Members for Mid Norfolk and for The Cotswolds both spoke about that—and that is something that we should perhaps think about in future.
You will know, Madam Deputy Speaker, that children play mummies and daddies or going to the shops. They tend to ape what the adults around them do. Well, my sisters and I played going to NFU meetings, because that was what the adults around us did. I welcome the work that the NFU has done to get consumers talking about standards, but we do not need primary legislation to have a Trade and Agriculture Commission. Amendment 16 does not enshrine these standards in law; rather, it obliges the Government to impose a wide and, in my view, slightly ill-defined set of conditions on new and roll-over FTAs. And if Labour Members truly are champions of farming, they should not support amendment 11, which bans the use of any pesticide in any field.
This Bill is great. The future of agriculture in this country is great. I commend it to the House.
Lords amendment 1 disagreed to.
Proceedings interrupted (Programme Order, this day).
The Deputy Speaker put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that time (Standing Order No. 83F).
Lords amendment 9 disagreed to.

After Clause 34 - Application of pesticides: limitations on use to protect human health

Motion made, and Question put, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 11.—(Victoria Prentis.)

The House divided: Ayes 347, Noes 212.
Question accordingly agreed to.
Lords amendment 11 disagreed to.
The list of Members currently certified as eligible for a proxy vote, and of the Members nominated as their proxy, is published at the end of today’s debates.
Lords amendment 12 disagreed to.

After Clause 42 - Requirement for agricultural and food imports to meet domestic standards

Motion made, and Question put, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 16.—(Victoria Prentis.)

The House divided: Ayes 332, Noes 279.
Question accordingly agreed to.
Lords amendment 16 disagreed to.
The list of Members currently certified as eligible for a proxy vote, and of the Members nominated as their proxy, is published at the end of today’s debates.

After Clause 42 - Contribution of agriculture and associated land use to climate change targets

Motion made, and Question put, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 17.—(Victoria Prentis.)

The House divided: Ayes 344, Noes 206.
Question accordingly agreed to.
Lords amendment 17 disagreed to.
The list of Members currently certified as eligible for a proxy vote, and of the Members nominated as their proxy, is published at the end of today’s debates.

Eleanor Laing: As Mr Deputy Speaker informed the House earlier, Mr Speaker has given careful consideration to Lords amendment  18, which would establish a Trade and Agriculture Commission. Mr Speaker is satisfied that it would impose a charge on the public revenue which is not authorised by the money resolution passed by this House on 3 February. In accordance with paragraph (3) of Standing Order No. 78, Lords amendment 18 is therefore deemed to be disagreed to.
Lords amendment 18 deemed to be disagreed to (Standing Order No. 78(3)).
Lords amendments 2 to 8 agreed to, with Commons financial privileges waived in respect of Lords amendments 3 and 4.
Lords amendment 10 agreed to.
Lords amendments 13 to 15 agreed to.
Lords amendments 19 to 46 agreed to, with Commons financial privileges waived in respect of Lords amendment 30.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83H), That a Committee be appointed to draw up Reasons to be assigned to the Lords for disagreeing to their amendments 1, 9, 11, 12, 16, 17 and 18.
That Victoria Prentis, James Morris, Fay Jones, Gary Sambrook, Luke Pollard, Gill Furniss and Deidre Brock be members of the Committee;
That Victoria Prentis be the Chair of the Committee;
That three be the quorum of the Committee.
That the Committee do withdraw immediately.—(Maria Caulfield.)
Question agreed to.
Committee to withdraw immediately; reasons to be reported and communicated to the Lords.

Eleanor Laing: I ought to have mentioned before the withdrawal of the Committee that in order to observe social distancing the Reasons Committee will meet in Committee Room 12.

Business without Debate

Delegated Legislation

Eleanor Laing: With the leave of the House, we shall take motions 3 and 4 together.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),

Exiting the European Union (Electricity)

That the draft Electricity (Risk-Preparedness) (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020, which were laid before this House on 17 September, be approved.

Exiting the European Union (Health Care and Associated Professions)

That the draft European Qualifications (Health and Social Care Professions) (EFTA States) (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020, which were laid before this House on 17 September, be approved.—(Maria Caulfield.)
Question agreed to.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),

Debt Management and Relief

That the draft Debt Respite Scheme (Breathing Space Moratorium and Mental Health Crisis Moratorium) (England and Wales) Regulations 2020, which were laid before this House on 9 September, be approved.—(Maria Caulfield.)
Question agreed to.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),

Criminal Law

That the Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996 (Code of Practice) Order 2020, dated 9 September 2020, a copy of which was laid before this House on 10 September, be approved.—(Maria Caulfield.)
Question agreed to.

Committees

Ordered,

Environmental Audit Committee

That Mr Shailesh Vara be discharged from the Environmental Audit Committee and Cherilyn Mackrory be added.—(Bill Wiggin, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.)
Ordered,

Petitions Committee

That Steve Double be discharged from the Petitions Committee and Jonathan Gullis be added.—(Bill Wiggin, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.)

Queen Mary’s Hospital: Urgent Care Services

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Maria Caulfield.)

Fleur Anderson: I am grateful that Mr Speaker has granted this debate, and to the Minister for Health, the hon. Member for Charnwood (Edward Argar), for taking time out of his schedule to respond to it. This issue is of huge concern to my constituents, as I am sure he can understand. More than 300 of them have signed my petition just this past week, and many have been in touch with me to explain how important the issue of urgent care services at Queen Mary’s Hospital is to them.
I have called for this debate and am standing here today because I really value our local hospitals and all the work that the fantastic staff have done during this pandemic to care for us, to endlessly adapt systems and services and to save lives. I take this opportunity to thank the NHS managers, doctors, nurses, cleaners and support staff for all that they do. It is because I, and local residents, value our local hospital so much that I ask the Minister to support the reopening of the urgent treatment centre and the pharmacy for out-patients before the winter and the increasing demand begins. It is really important that it is a walk-in treatment centre that does not require bookings.
Allow me to provide some context for the Minister. In August 1997, Queen Mary’s Hospital, which is in Roehampton, ended its A&E service, and has since had a minor injuries unit, which the trust gave a gold-standard accreditation in November last year. So there is no A&E service in my constituency. The minor injuries unit was upgraded to an urgent treatment centre, with a GP added to the excellent nurse practitioner staff, earlier this year. In a normal year, the centre serves 16,000 to 18,000 people, so it is a vital service in our community.
During the peak of the pandemic, the decision was taken to temporarily close the service because of a lack of space for social distancing and to be able to adhere to Government guidelines, and also to move the staff to other areas that needed them more. The pharmacy for out-patients has only recently been closed, and at very short notice. Of course I understand, as do local residents, that changes had to made and that health services had to adapt. I fully appreciate that our NHS managers had to make some extremely difficult decisions on service provision as they faced the prospect of being overwhelmed, which they are now facing again, with the second wave. The continued closure makes us in Roehampton feel overlooked, and it is putting additional pressures on NHS services at Teddington, the walk-in centre at Kingston, St George’s Hospital A&E and local GP surgeries.I am concerned that this will cause untold long-term damage to the health and wellbeing of our community.
I have been asked, “What about the person with the dislocated shoulder, the chest pain, the allergic reaction?” They all need to be assessed and stabilised urgently, but at the moment they are being turned away. I have met the chief executive of the hospital trust and raised these issues. I asked her to assure me that the centre would be reopened as soon as it was safe to do so, but she has not confirmed when it will reopen, if at all. That is very  worrying. I hope to hear from the Minister this evening that he will support the trust in making plans to reopen the walk-in urgent treatment centre.
I would like briefly to explain the impacts that the closure is having on local people. Anyone who goes to where the minor injuries unit used to be is asked to travel far away to the Teddington walk-in centre, to Kingston A&E or to St George’s A&E in Tooting. Those bus journeys can take an hour, which can result in painful journeys or in many people not making the journey, not being seen and not being treated. I am sure the Minister will agree that an hour on public transport is an unacceptably long journey time when there is a really good hospital right there in Roehampton, but it is just not open for walk-in urgent care. One of my constituents wrote to me this week to say:
“I took my elderly father, who is nearly 90 years old, to Queen Mary’s just over a month ago, because he had cut his fingers quite badly and they were bleeding. The kind staff there had helped us when my father had a similar problem last year and they knew how to bandage his fingers because he has very thin skin…Because the Centre was closed, we had to go all the way to Kingston Hospital which was quite stressful. While his treatment there was good, it would have been far easier if we could have gone somewhere more local to him as my father isn’t used to travelling that far.”
Also, some patients are unable to travel or should not travel. An example is patients with diabetic foot ulcers, who should keep their activity to a minimum to allow ulcers to heal. At the same time, if they have an infection, it needs treating immediately as it could deteriorate rapidly leading to the need for amputation.That is one group of patients who are not getting the care they need because the urgent treatment centre and the pharmacy are not open. There is an obvious health risk to people needing to travel further if they are seriously ill.
There is also an increased risk of covid infection through asking people to travel greater distances by public transport during the pandemic, especially when they are unwell or chronically ill. They could have an underlying condition, which might be the reason they are goingto the urgent care centre in the first place. That would make them more susceptible to the effects of covid-19. Closing the pharmacy is having the effect of delaying patients receiving treatment, as they are now being referred to their GP by the clinics. If they cannot immediately get an appointment with their GP, this can lead to delays of up to 48 hours before starting their treatment. That is another impact.
There is also a knock-on effect on services in other places. The fact that 16,000 to 18,000 people a year used to be treated at Queen Mary’s is putting pressure on St George’s and Kingston, along with the increasing demand at the moment.GP surgery appointments are already at a premium, and this demand will only worsen as the difficult winter months approach. Even before the pandemic, it was reported that over 11 million patients had to wait more than 21 days for a GP appointment. In my constituency, there are 14 main surgeries and three branch practices. My team has called round all the local GP services. Several are still only doing appointments over Zoom, and in one local medical centre, a member of staff begged for the urgent care centre to reopen due to the pressure its closure is causing for GP surgeries.
Increased demand for overstretched GP surgeries with finite resources ultimately means fewer local people’s conditions or illnesses receiving treatment, and even more concerningly, serious and urgent illnesses such as cancer being missed and going undiagnosed. It is cancer diagnosis that I am particularly concerned about. As the Minister knows, lots of cancers are diagnosed when people present at hospital with a symptom. With the doors of the urgent treatment centre still closed, many cancers that might otherwise have been spotted will have been missed.
Motion lapsed (Standing Order No. 9(3)).
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Maria Caulfield.)

Fleur Anderson: Many cancers will be missed if people cannot go to the urgent care centre and are redirected to other facilities, because there is a real concern that they are not making that journey.
According to Breast Cancer Now, the importance of GP referrals and of the NHS breast screening programme to breast cancer survival cannot be underestimated. However, the number of people referred to see a specialist with suspected cancer declined dramatically during the peak of the coronavirus outbreak. In England, between March and July this year, there were 95,000 fewer referrals by a GP for tests.
Prostate cancer is also of real concern. This cancer claims the life of one man every 45 minutes in the UK. Early diagnosis, as I know from my own family, really does save lives. The impact of covid-19 has meant that around 3,500 men in the UK risk being diagnosed with last-stage, incurable prostate cancer. With GP appointments often hard to get, urgent care centres such as the one at Queen Mary’s Hospital are very important in spotting signs of cancer early on. The prolonged closures of urgent care centres are accelerating the crisis in cancer care. Cancer and other serious diseases will not wait for the covid-19 crisis to abate—they will not wait until the winter is over—before taking lives again. We cannot lose sight of this. We cannot risk the lives of local people.
In summary, the urgent treatment centre and pharmacy at Queen Mary’s Hospital is a very valued and valuable local health service with fantastic staff. I understand that it had to close and that difficult decisions had to be made, but for too long, people in Roehampton, Putney and Southfields needing urgent care have been sent away. That is leading to some people going untreated and others suffering on long journeys, and it is adding to the pressure on A&E services at Kingston Hospital and St George’s Hospital in Tooting. It is time to stop sending people with dislocated shoulders, deep cuts, chest pains or severe allergic reactions to places an hour away when we have a great hospital with great urgent care nurses in our own community. We need the out-patient pharmacy to provide medications for treatment as soon as they are needed. There is more demand than ever for a walk-in service at the urgent treatment centre, which used to treat 16,000 to 18,000 people a year. My ask of the Minister is simple: will he do everything in his power to reopen the urgent treatment centre with walk-in capacity and the out-patient pharmacy at Queen Mary’s Hospital before the winter begins?

Edward Argar: I congratulate the hon. Member for Putney (Fleur Anderson) on securing this debate on an issue that is important to her constituents and more widely across south London and on her typically reasonable and measured tone in putting her constituents’ case so clearly and firmly. As she did, I pay tribute to the staff at Queen Mary’s, St George’s University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust and across our entire NHS for the amazing work they do day in, day out, but particularly during this pandemic. Thanks to their dedication and their response to the public health measures and restrictions, which have been difficult for many people, the NHS was not overwhelmed during the first covid wave, and we have put in place measures to prevent that from happening in a second wave.
As the hon. Lady said, coronavirus has brought challenges and forced us all to do things differently to manage the pandemic, protect the NHS and save lives. There is no doubt that it has led to rapid changes in the way that health and care services are delivered, as providers have refocused their efforts on tackling the pandemic, but also on providing services in a safe way for other service users. But it is important that these changes are temporary and that the NHS is working to reopen services as soon as it is safe to do so. She said that she hopes her constituents in Roehampton will not be overlooked in this place and I suspect that, as long as she is a Member of this House, they certainly will not be.
The hon. Lady was right to highlight the importance of local services so local people can access services easily, without transport or other challenges. It is regrettable that the urgent treatment centre at Queen Mary’s Hospital remains closed. I know that that decision was not taken lightly by the trust. It was taken on clinical advice by the trust to protect the safety of patients, staff and the public. I believe it has been closed since 30 March this year. As she succinctly put it, the issue is due to the requirements of social distancing and the critical importance of infection prevention and control. Therefore, given the configuration of the centre, and its walk-in aspect, it could not operate as it did before the pandemic. It is not able easily to segregate patients with respiratory problems, treat them with dedicated staff, or maintain the necessary distancing.
I am conscious that the trust has yet to set out a firm commitment to a reopening date, but I join the hon. Lady in saying that I hope it will set out its future plans as soon as possible. I am conscious that she has met the trust’s chief executive, Jacqueline Totterdell, to discuss these issues and plans for the reopening of the urgent treatment centre. Although that reopening date is still to be confirmed, I understand that the trust and local commissioners are undertaking work to agree a new covid-secure model of care before reopening, which is the right approach.
My offer to the hon. Lady is twofold and I hope it will be helpful. First, I am happy to raise the issue directly with the chief executive of the trust to consider both timescales and a date for the reopening. Secondly, if she feels it would be useful, I am happy to ask my office to get in touch with her and arrange to meet her in a slightly less formal environment than this Chamber, to discuss in more detail the urgent treatment centre and the pharmacy, which I will come to in a moment.
The hon. Lady highlighted not only the urgent treatment centre but its role in helping early diagnosis and treatment of cancers. I completely understand and recognise her concerns about the impact of the pandemic on cancer services and the importance of ensuring that cancers do not go undiagnosed. The NHS is working to restore the full operation of all cancer services, with local delivery plans being delivered by cancer alliances. Systems will be working with GPs and the public locally to increase the number of people coming forward and being referred with suspected cancer to at least pre-pandemic levels—I will come on to the performance of her local trust in a moment.
To support that, systems will help to ensure sufficient diagnostic capacity in covid-19-secure environments, through the use of independent sector facilities and the development of community diagnostic hubs and a rapid diagnostic centre. The hon. Lady is right to highlight that diagnostic capability is a considerable challenge, not least because, to put it perhaps a little bluntly, many diagnostic tests are very close and personal, and the equipment used is intimate in terms of looking inside the human body. The cleaning and infection control measures that are necessary between each patient make it challenging to see as many patients as would have been the case before the pandemic.
The cancer recovery taskforce met in September to review the status of cancer services against recovery metrics and a national recovery plan is being developed for publication shortly. In respect of the hon. Lady’s particular trust—I am afraid that I have only the figures for the overall St George’s trust, which I hope will none the less be useful—referrals in August for cancer treatment, as I understand it, were twice as high as they were in April, so a lot of work is being done to pick that up. On the basis of the latest figures that I have, which I think are for August, the trust saw 87.8% of people within the two-week target and 94.5% of those referred for treatment received that treatment within 31 days. So I put it on the record that, in very difficult circumstances, her trust is doing a very good job to bring those services back into operation.
It is important that we continue to advise people to contact their GP or to seek the help they need about a symptom that could be cancer or that could represent a risk. The hon. Lady is right that it is important that, when people do need help, they are able to access that GP service and get the advice that they need.
I turn to cancer screening, which I know is something that, although the hon. Lady did not mention it specifically, is relevant to that diagnostic capability and capacity. In some areas, providers of screening services did reschedule invitations or appointments to a later date, again to address infection control risks, but cancer screening services as well are now being restored as swiftly as it is safe to do so. I spoke to the Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St Edmunds (Jo Churchill), who has responsibility for, among other things, breast cancer screening services, and I think that something like—I may not have the exact figure—80% to 85% of the backlog has now been caught up in recent months. It is important that we sustain that improvement and that the hon. Lady’s constituents see that improvement.
As the country continues to deal with covid, I want to reassure the hon. Lady that the Government are committed to providing and ensuring access to high-quality care  that meets the needs of people across England, irrespective of where they live. She is absolutely right that it is vital that her constituents are able to access and get that local medical help when they need it, and that includes the pharmacy that she mentioned. The hospital pharmacy is absolutely vital for people being able to have timely access to the medicines they need and being able to get them on site. Although people using it will have been treated and advised in hospital, they can none the less get very helpful advice from the pharmacy as well, so I share her view about the importance of that. As I have said, I include that in my offer to her—to discuss that with her and with the chief executive. I will endeavour to do that later this week, but I am afraid that, given that I think I am taking through seven statutory instruments in here tomorrow, it may be towards the back end of the week that I am able to do that. However, I will endeavour to do so.
The Government remain committed more broadly to restoring urgent non-covid services in a safe way and supporting NHS capacity to protect against the risk of a further surge in cases and, of course, the increased pressures—the hon. Lady alluded to that as the context for this—on the system during the winter. I reiterate my thanks to our NHS staff, not only for what they have done, but for what I suspect they are going to have to do in the coming months.
The hon. Lady will be aware that we have announced considerable further investment in the NHS: an extra £3 billion in July to help support the NHS, and £450 million of capital funding for urgent and emergency care services and expansions. I recognise that this is not going to her own hospital, but I would just highlight that £2.5 million is going to St George’s. Quite rightly, she will champion Roehampton, but I am sure she will welcome that more  broadly as well. However, I recognise her concerns about Roehampton, which is why I am happy to meet her.
I simply reiterate that I share the hon. Lady’s view that, where services for perfectly good and legitimate clinical reasons have been temporarily closed or altered, it is extremely important that they are reopened as soon as trusts are able to do so and, where in the future any changes are proposed, that they are subject to the usual full public consultation, engagement and consideration. I do not want to see temporary measures becoming permanent by default, and she can read that as perhaps an expression of my view on what is happening in Roehampton.
As the hon. Lady knows, the next step is for the local commissioners, together with the trust, to agree the new covid-secure model of care so that the centre can reopen in a way that is safe for patients, staff and the public. I will ensure that I remind them of the need to keep her fully updated, although I suspect they will not need that, because I suspect they know that she has an extremely high level of interest in this on behalf of her constituents.
I hope that I have been able to offer the hon. Lady some reassurances today. I thank her for securing the debate, and I very much look forward to meeting her. I am afraid that, at the moment, it has to be an offer of a meeting either by Zoom or in this place, but I hope that at some point, when we are able to do so safely and without hindering the work of those working in the hospital, I may even be able to visit her hospital with her in the near future.
Question put and agreed to.
House adjourned.

Members Eligible for a Proxy Vote

The following is the list of Members currently certified as eligible for a proxy vote, and of the Members nominated as their proxy:

  

  Ms Diane Abbott (Hackney North and Stoke Newington) (Lab)
  Bell Ribeiro-Addy


  Tahir Ali (Birmingham, Hall Green) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Lucy Allan (Telford) (Con)
  Mark Spencer


  Dr Rosena Allin-Khan (Tooting) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Mr Richard Bacon (South Norfolk) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Siobhan Baillie (Stroud) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Hannah Bardell (Livingston) (SNP)
  Patrick Grady


  Mr John Baron (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Margaret Beckett (Derby South) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Apsana Begum (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab)
  Bell Ribeiro-Addy


  Sir Paul Beresford (Mole Valley) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Jake Berry (Rossendale and Darwen) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Mhairi Black (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (SNP)
  Patrick Grady


  Ian Blackford (Ross, Skye and Lochaber) (SNP)
  Patrick Grady


  Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
  Patrick Grady


  Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Steven Bonnar (Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill) (SNP)
  Patrick Grady


  Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Ms Lyn Brown (West Ham) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab)
  Zarah Sultana


  Conor Burns (Bournemouth West) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Ian Byrne (Liverpool, West Derby) (Lab)
  Bell Ribeiro-Addy


  Liam Byrne (Birmingham, Hodge Hill) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Amy Callaghan (East Dunbartonshire) (SNP)
  Patrick Grady


  Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Sarah Champion (Rotherham) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Douglas Chapman (Dunfermline and West Fife) (SNP)
  Patrick Grady


  Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP)
  Patrick Grady


  Feryal Clark (Enfield North) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Mr Simon Clarke (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Chris Clarkson (Heywood and Middleton) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Damian Collins (Folkestone and Hythe) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Rosie Cooper (West Lancashire) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)
  Bell Ribeiro-Addy


  Ronnie Cowan (Inverclyde) (SNP)
  Patrick Grady


  Geoffrey Cox (Torridge and West Devon) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Angela Crawley (Lanark and Hamilton East) (SNP)
  Patrick Grady


  Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)
  Chris Elmore


  Tracey Crouch (Chatham and Aylesford) (Con)
  Caroline Nokes


  Janet Daby (Lewisham East) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op)
  Dawn Butler


  Dr James Davies (Vale of Clwyd) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Martyn Day (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (SNP)
  Patrick Grady


  Marsha De Cordova (Battersea) (Lab)
  Rachel Hopkins


  Allan Dorans (Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock) (SNP)
  Patrick Grady


  Peter Dowd (Bootle) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Jack Dromey (Birmingham, Erdington) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Philip Dunne (Ludlow) (Con)
  Jeremy Hunt


  Ruth Edwards (Rushcliffe) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Mrs Natalie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)
  Maria Caulfield


  Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  George Eustice (Camborne and Redruth) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Sir David Evennett (Bexleyheath and Crayford) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Michael Fabricant (Lichfield) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Stephen Farry (North Down) (Alliance)
  Wendy Chamberlain


  Marion Fellows (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
  Patrick Grady


  Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Ind)
  Jonathan Edwards


  Katherine Fletcher (South Ribble) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Stephen Flynn (Aberdeen South) (SNP)
  Patrick Grady


  Vicky Foxcroft (Lewisham, Deptford) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Marcus Fysh (Yeovil) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Sir Roger Gale (North Thanet) (Con)
  Caroline Nokes


  Ms Nusrat Ghani (Wealden) (Con)
  Steve Baker


  Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)
  Patrick Grady


  Preet Kaur Gill (Birmingham, Edgbaston) (Lab/Co-op)
  Chris Elmore


  Dame Cheryl Gillan (Chesham and Amersham) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Mary Glindon (North Tyneside) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Mrs Helen Grant (Maidstone and The Weald) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)
  Patrick Grady


  Neil Gray (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
  Patrick Grady


  Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)
  Graham Stringer


  Fabian Hamilton (Leeds North East) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Claire Hanna (Belfast South) (SDLP)
  Liz Saville Roberts


  Neale Hanvey (Kirkaldy and Cowdenbeath) (SNP)
  Patrick Grady


  Ms Harriet Harman (Camberwell and Peckham) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Sir Oliver Heald (North East Hertfordshire) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Sir Mark Hendrick (Preston) (Lab/Co-op)
  Chris Elmore


  Drew Hendry (Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey) (SNP)
  Patrick Grady


  Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)
  Fay Jones


  Dame Margaret Hodge (Barking) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Mrs Sharon Hodgson (Washington and Sunderland West) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Kate Hollern (Blackburn) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Adam Holloway (Gravesham) (Con)
  Maria Caulfield


  Sir George Howarth (Knowsley) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Dr Neil Hudson (Penrith and The Border) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Tom Hunt (Ipswich) (Con)
  Dehenna Davison


  Imran Hussain (Bradford East) (Lab)
  Mohammad Yasin


  Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)
  Wendy Chamberlain


  Dan Jarvis (Barnsley Central) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Mr Ranil Jayawardena (North East Hampshire) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Andrea Jenkyns (Morley and Outwood) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Dame Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Alicia Kearns (Rutland and Melton) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Afzal Khan (Manchester, Gorton) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Sir Greg Knight (East Yorkshire) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Julian Knight (Solihull) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab)
  Kate Osborne


  Chris Law (Dundee West) (SNP)
  Patrick Grady


  Clive Lewis (Norwich South) (Lab)
  Lloyd Russell-Moyle


  Mr Ian Liddell-Grainger (Bridgwater and West Somerset) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Tony Lloyd (Rochdale) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Mr Jonathan Lord (Woking) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Kenny MacAskill (East Lothian) (SNP)
  Patrick Grady


  Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
  Patrick Grady


  Karl McCartney (Lincoln) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Stewart Malcolm McDonald (Glasgow South) (SNP)
  Patrick Grady


  Stuart C. McDonald (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (SNP)
  Patrick Grady


  John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)
  Zarah Sultana


  Anne McLaughlin (Glasgow North East) (SNP)
  Patrick Grady


  Anna McMorrin (Cardiff North) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  John McNally (Falkirk) (SNP)
  Patrick Grady


  Khalid Mahmood (Birmingham, Perry Barr) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Seema Malhotra (Feltham and Heston) (Lab/Co-op)
  Chris Elmore


  Christian Matheson (City of Chester) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Ian Mearns (Gateshead) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Mark Menzies (Fylde) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Stephen Metcalfe (South Basildon and East Thurrock) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Nigel Mills (Amber Valley) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Carol Monaghan (Glasgow North West) (SNP)
  Patrick Grady


  Anne Marie Morris (Newton Abbot) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  David Morris (Morecambe and Lunesdale) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  James Murray (Ealing North) (Lab/Co-op)
  Chris Elmore


  Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP)
  Patrick Grady


  John Nicolson (Ochil and South Perthshire) (SNP)
  Patrick Grady


  Dr Matthew Offord (Hendon) (Con)
  Rebecca Harris


  Brendan O’Hara (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
  Patrick Grady


  Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Abena Oppong-Asare (Erith and Thamesmead) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Kate Osamor (Edmonton) (Lab/Co-op)
  Nadia Whittome


  Kirsten Oswald (East Renfrewshire) (SNP)
  Patrick Grady


  Mr Owen Paterson (North Shropshire) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Sir Mike Penning (Hemel Hempstead) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Dr Dan Poulter (Central Suffolk and North Ipswich) (Con)
  Peter Aldous


  Lucy Powell (Manchester Central) (Lab/Co-op)
  Chris Elmore


  Yasmin Qureshi (Bolton South East) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Christina Rees (Neath) (Lab/Co-op)
  Chris Elmore


  Mary Robinson (Cheadle) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Con)
  Rebecca Harris


  Selaine Saxby (North Devon) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Mr Virendra Sharma (Ealing, Southall) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
  Chris Elmore


  Alec Shelbrooke (Elmet and Rothwell) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Tommy Sheppard (Edinburgh East) (SNP)
  Patrick Grady


  Tulip Siddiq (Hampstead and Kilburn) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Chloe Smith (Norwich North) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Andrew Stephenson (Pendle) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
  Wendy Chamberlain


  Sir Gary Streeter (South West Devon) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Mel Stride (Central Devon) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)
  Patrick Grady


  Richard Thomson (Gordon) (SNP)
  Patrick Grady


  Jon Trickett (Hemsworth) (Lab)
  Dawn Butler


  Karl Turner (Kingston upon Hull East) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Mr Robin Walker (Worcester) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Dr Jamie Wallis (Bridgend) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Dr Philippa Whitford (Central Ayrshire) (SNP)
  Patrick Grady


  Hywel Williams (Arfon) (PC)
  Liz Saville Roberts


  Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP)
  Patrick Grady